Home / Pennsylvania / Verona
5360 Saltsburg Road, Verona, PA 15147 · Allegheny County · (412) 798-8000
174 certified beds, about 153 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395790 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
None of its 72 health citations since July 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 3.63 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.91 of those hours.
43.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Boncrest Resource Group, an affiliated group of 5 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 72 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide bodily privacy during treatment procedures for one of six residents (Resident R10) and failed to maintain the dignity of two of six residents reviewed (Resident R43) who had an indwelling urinary catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) and (Resident 185) who had an urinary condom catheter (non-invasive external urinary catheter worn like a condom it collects urine as it drains from the bladder and sends it to a collection bag).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain physician orders for management of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) for one of two residents (Resident R173) failed to obtain physician orders for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) for one of two residents (Resident R15) failed to notify a physician's of a resident with a hypoglycemic episode (low blood sugar) for one of two residents (Resident R173) and failed to obtain orders for a urinary condom catheter (non-invasive external urinary catheter worn like a condom it collects urine as it drains from the bladder and sends it to a collection bag) for one of three residents (Resident R185).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records, facility policy and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide consistent and complete communication with the dialysis (treatment that helps body remove extra fluid and waste products) center for three of three residents (Residents R17, R34, and R86), failed to ensure that monitoring of the residents' access site was accurate and completed for two of three residents (Resident R17 and R86).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medications in one of three medication storage rooms (4th Floor Medication Room) and four of five medication carts (2 East Medication Cart, 2 [NAME] Medication Cart, 3 [NAME] Medication Cart, and 4 [NAME] Medication Cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor resident personal refrigerator temperatures for one of two refrigerators (Resident R98) which created the potential for food borne illness, failed to handle and wash facility linens in a safe an aseptic (free from disease-causing microorganisms) manner during an observation of the main laundry room, failed to implement infection control practices to prevent cross contamination during a dressing change for one of three residents (Resident R10), and failed to implement a comprehensive program for water management to monitor the potential development and spread of Legionella within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to determine whether it was safe to self-administer medications for one of six residents (Resident R74).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, closed resident records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's family of behavioral concerns for one of three closed resident records (Closed Resident Record CR194).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess the functional status of the individual resident to determine if the use of a bolster (a long, thick cushion) is a restraint for one of four residents (Residents R23).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, closed resident records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise comprehensive care plans to reflect the current care needs and services for one of five sampled resident records (Closed Resident Records CR194).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents received proper treatment for pressure ulcers for one of five residents (Resident R10).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that medication regimen reviews (MRR) were completed and reviewed by the resident's attending physician monthly for one of five residents (Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical record reviews and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a thorough investigation for a burn for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed have physician orders for colostomy supplies and care for one of six residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record review, facility provided documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a safe environment resulting in a burn for one of three residents (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to ensure a complete and thorough investigation of an incident involving the potential for neglect for two of five residents (Resident R5, and R119), and failed to conduct a criminal background check prior to the start of employment for two of five staff ( Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E10, and Registered Nurse (RN) Employee E11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and investigate an incident of possible abuse and/or neglect for three of five incidents reviewed (Residents R5, R54 and R119).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was updated and revised to reflect the resident's specific care needs for three of six residents (Residents R62, R118, and R292).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a physician orders for intravenous catheter (IV- a catheter placed into a vein for a medical need of fluids or antibiotics) dressing changes for one of two residents (Resident R56), failed to follow physician orders for wound care for one of five residents (Resident R124), failed to ensure timely follow up physician appointments were ordered for two out of four residents (Residents R2, and R97), and failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice and physician orders by failing to label a medicated patch with the date and time prior to application for one of three residents (Resident R133) as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care relating to CPAP/BIPAP (a continuous positive airway pressure machine used to keep airways open while you sleep/a positive airway pressure machine when breathing in and breathing out) for three of three residents (Residents R19, R50, and R93).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records, facility policy and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide consistent and complete communication with the dialysis center for two of three residents reviewed (Residents R4 and R44), failed to have physician orders for access device care and management for two of three residents (Resident R4, and R109) and failed to have appropriate care plans for two of three resident's (Resident R4 and R109).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications and biologicals properly and securely in three of five medications carts (Third floor North Hall, Third floor [NAME] Hall, and Fourth floor East Hall medication carts).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions for two of three residents (Residents R49 and R109), failed to implement appropriate transmission-based precautions for four of five residents (Residents R62, R118, R142, and R143), and failed to implement an infection control program that included a system of surveillance to identify possible communicable diseases or infections for two of ten months (September 2024, and February 2025) and failed to prevent cross contamination during a medication pass for one of three resident's (Resident R133).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician or resident representative of a change in condition/status for three of six residents (Resident R54, R119 and R124).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report one of five neglect allegations (Residents R5) to the State Department of Health as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility provided documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision resulting in elopement (resident exited to an unsupervised and unauthorized location without staff's knowledge) for two of five residents (Resident R54 and R119).
Inspectors wroteBased on review facility polices, observations, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter as required for one of three residents (Resident R292).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for four of five nursing staff (Employees E15, E16, E17, and E18).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food in a form to meet individuals' needs in one of six residents (Resident R13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, resident clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents had the capacity to understand the terms of a binding arbitration agreement (A binding agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not). for one of five residents (Resident R11) and failed to ensure an arbitration agreement was signed for one of five residents (Resident R28).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, review of Quality Assurance attendance records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings at least quarterly with all the required committee members for one of four quarterly meeting (Quarter One of 2025). Findings Include: The facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program policy dated 5/1/25, indicated that the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide, date-driven QAPI program that is focused on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life for our residents. Review of Quality assurance and Performance Improvement sign in sheets and attendance records for Quarter One of 2025, failed to reveal the Infection Preventionist was in attendance. During an interview on 6/10/25, at 2:29 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control policies and procedures and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for one of ten months (September 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to designate a qualified individual(s) onsite, who is responsible for implementing programs and activities to prevent and control infections (2/10/25 to 3/5/25).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that equipment was in safe operating condition for two of two crash carts (First and Second floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documents and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Communication training to five of five direct care facility staff reviewed (Employees E15, E16, E17, E18, and E19).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for five of five staff members (Employees E15, E16, E17, E18, and E19).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Infection Control for two of five staff members (Employees E18, and E19).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to inform a resident's representative in advance of the proposed care, including the risk and benefits of the prescribed medication for one of five sampled residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider for two of two residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R1, and R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident or resident's representative of the facility bed-hold policy (an agreement for the facility to hold a bed for an agreed upon rate during a hospitalization) for two of two resident hospital transfers (Residents R1, and R2). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Bed Holds and Returns, dated 5/12/24, indicated that residents or representatives are informed (in writing) of the facility bed hold policies. All residents or representatives are provided information regarding the facility bed hold policies, which address holding or reserving residents bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents are provided information about these policies at least twice: admission packet, and at the time for transfer. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance for two out of four residents (Resident R1, and R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, facility tour, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision that resulted in an elopement (leaving an area without permission) for one of six residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance for one of two residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, closed clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a medical provider of a change in condition for one out of five closed resident records (Closed Resident Record CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, job descriptions, documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from physical neglect for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and facility provided documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from misappropriation (the act of stealing something that you have been trusted to care of and using it for yourself) of medications for two of five residents reviewed (Residents R2 and Resident R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to properly store food products in a manner to prevent foodborne illness in the Main Kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and resident, family and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide privacy during medication administration for one of five residents (R51), failed to provide an environment that maintained and enhanced each resident's quality of life for one of two residents (Resident R75), and failed to treat resident with respect by failing to address a resident by their preferred name for one of three residents (Resident R93).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, resident records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to acquire and document a physician's discharge order for one out of three resident records (Resident R133) reviewed, and failed to make certain that the necessary resident information was communicated to the receiving health care provider for five out of six residents sampled with facility initiated transfers (Residents R28, R43, R64, R75, and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that resident assessments were accurate for seven of 23 residents (Resident R2, R6, R21, R38, R64, R68, and R285).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prescribed treatment and services related to the care of pressure ulcers for four of six residents (Resident R4, R9, R83, R243) that resulted in worsening and new pressure area for one resident (Resident R83) and failed to prevent avoidable pressure ulcer development that of a new pressure ulcer for two of six residents (Resident R9).
Inspectors wroteBased on review facility polices, observations, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of a urinary catheter as required for three of four residents (Resident R53, R93, and R129).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, medical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services and properly monitor and assess weight and nutrition status for five of seven residents reviewed (Resident R28, R83,R91, R129, and R243).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, interviews, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for three of three residents (Residents R68, R285, and R334).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate resident care plans and conduct ongoing accurate assessments to ensure that bedrails were used to meet residents' needs and the risks associated with bedrail usage for five of five residents (Residents R2, R6, R21, R28, and R64).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate documentation for three of 16 residents (Resident R4, R9, and R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident records, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement an infection control program that included a system of surveillance to identify possible communicable diseases or infections for four of 11 months (March 2024, April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024), failed to prevent cross contamination during a dressing change for one of two residents (Resident R9), and failed to make certain that appropriate treatments and services were provided for the use of a urinary catheter as required for one out of five residents (R53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's infection control policies and procedures and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for three of 11 months (March 2024, April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility in-service documentation, personnel records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all nurse aide staff received a minimum of twelve hours of in-service education training each year, within 12 months of their hire date anniversary, as required for five out of five personnel records (Nurse Aide Employee E17, Nurse Aide Employee E18, Nurse Aide Employee E19, Nurse Aide Employee E20, and Nurse Aide Employee E21).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate the call bell needs for one of five residents (Resident R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (a written instruction such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R43). Review of the facility policy Advanced Directives, dated 5/18/24, indicated that upon admission, the resident will be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advanced directive if he or she chooses to do so. Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advanced directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical chart. Review of the clinical record revealed that Resident R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' medical information on one of three nursing units (Third Floor) and two of nine residents (Resident R9 and R285).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, grievance records, reports submitted to the state, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the facility abuse and neglect policy for two of four allegations (Resident R15 and Resident R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility grievances, reports submitted to the State, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse or neglect for one of four residents (Resident R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility grievances, investigation documentations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation involving an allegation of neglect for one out of four residents (Resident R38).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely recheck and notify the physician of decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels for one of three residents (Resident R284).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide to provide appropriate care and services to residents receiving tube feedings for two of two residents reviewed (Residents R51 and R83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident clinical records, facility policy and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide consistent and complete communication with the dialysis center for two of two residents reviewed (Residents R4 and R334), and failed to implement a dialysis care plan for one of two resident's (Resident R4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a trauma survivor with trauma informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for two of two residents (Resident R6 and R68).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent for one of three residents (Resident R51).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from any significant medication errors for one of three residents. (Resident R51).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medications in two out of five medication carts (3 East Medication Cart and 4 East Medication Cart), failed to monitor refrigerator temperatures utilized for medication storage in one of two nursing units (Fourth Floor Medication Room), and failed to properly secure a medication cart while not in use for one of five medications carts (2 North Medication Cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to obtain a diagnosis for hospice services and to ensure the coordination of hospice services with facility services to meet the needs of each resident for end of life care for two of two residents (Resident R38 and R93).
11 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 13, 2025, 1 on July 12, 2024, 7 on August 4, 2023.
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) | 3.63 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.8% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.2% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.80 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 3.79 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 14% 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 3.86 in April to June 2025 to 3.63 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 | 3.63 | 0.91 | 3.79 | 3.25 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 153 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.82 | 0.95 | 3.99 | 3.39 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 148 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.95 | 0.99 | 4.14 | 3.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 142 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.86 | 0.87 | 4.03 | 3.44 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 143 |
| 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 | 13.6 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.2 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Seneca Place's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.0% 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. 127 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. 129 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 58 eligible stays.
50.8% 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. 63 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. 81 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 81 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. 42 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: SENECA PID LLC. CMS links this home to Boncrest Resource Group, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seneca Senior Care LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Boncrest Bridge City LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Boncrest Resource Group Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Baker, Amelia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Corrigan, Frank | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Payne, Oren | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/03/2024 | |
| Rosenbaum, Maurice | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Baker, Amelia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Polak, Tracy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/21/2025 | |
| Rosenbaum, Maurice | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Skelly, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Wilson, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Baker Tilly Us LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/02/2024 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/25/2025 | |
| Seneca Place | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Seneca Senior Care LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/27/2025 | |
| Matheny, Cynthia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Polak, Tracy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/21/2025 | |
| Skelly, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Wilson, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 |
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.