Home / Pennsylvania / Butler
107 Sunnyview Circle, Butler, PA 16001 · Butler County · (724) 282-1800
220 certified beds, about 211 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395788 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 31, 2026, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 92 health citations since January 2024, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $30,011 in the last three years; the largest was $30,011, and the latest is dated July 24, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.01 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
43.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Jonathan Bleier, an affiliated group of 18 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 92 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of personnel files, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly screen an employee by failing to conduct a timely criminal background check prior to the start of employment for three of five personnel files reviewed (Registered Nurse (RN) Employee E4, Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA) Employee E7, and Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E8.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance for three of eight sampled residents (Resident R9, R12, and R90).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident family interview and documentation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to assist a resident family with forming a family group and failed to follow up on a family concern for one of two resident family (Resident Family R110).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' medical information on one of five units (Cardinal Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and review of facility documents and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident from abuse for two of eight residents reviewed (Resident 92 and R201).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a physician's of a resident with a hyperglycemic episode (high blood sugar) for one of two residents (Resident R11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents received proper treatment for pressure ulcers for one of three residents (Resident R12).
Inspectors wroteBased a review of facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a comprehensive nutritional assessment for two of five residents (Resident R89 and R115).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for two of five residents (Residents R111 and R217). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Oxygen Administration last reviewed 1/27/26, indicated oxygen equipment will be checked daily for: Correct set up of equipment. Date tubing when initiated, and at least every two weeks when changed, more often if malfunction or visibly soiled. All tubing will be changed and dated every two weeks or more often if malfunction or visibly soiled. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R111 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct ongoing accurate assessments to ensure that bedrails were used to meet residents' needs and the risks associated with bedrail usage for one of three residents (Residents R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner and in two of seven medications carts (Cardinal South Hall and Cardinal East Hall) and two of four medication rooms (Cardinal Medication Room and Roseview Medication Room).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to currently employ a qualified Registered Dietitian (RD).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, resident interviews, and meal observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident selected menu items for two of five residents (Residents R90 and R203).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service sanitation on one of five nursing unit nutrition pantries (Rehab Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent cross contamination during a medication pass for one of three resident's (Resident R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and a staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to display (for residents and/or their responsible person) written information on how to apply for Medicare and Medicaid benefits and receiving refunds for previous payments covered by Medicare and Medicaid as required, in the building, where postings are available (First Floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for one of five floors (Rehabilitation (Rehab) floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, controlled medication shift reconciliation records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounting of controlled medications on three of six medication carts reviewed (Sunflower Unit East Hall Medication Cart, Sunflower Unit [NAME] Hall Medication Cart and Dogwood Unit East Hall Medication Cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate treatment and care for a midline catheter (a thin flexible tube inserted into a vein in the upper arm with the tip positioned just below the armpit) for one of two residents (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that a resident received the necessary services to treat pressure ulcers (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure to the skin) for one of two residents (Residents R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, it was determined to 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 one of three residents (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, review of facility documents, resident representative concerns, resident interviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor food temperatures creating the potential for food borne illness in the Main Kitchen of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident representatives' concerns, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents have the right to communication and access to persons and services inside the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with an enteral feeding tube (a tube inserted in the stomach through the abdomen) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent potential complications for one of three residents (R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to ensure an employee received abuse training for one of three employees (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision, which resulted in an elopement for two of 36 residents (Resident R12 and R37). This failure created an immediate jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have complete contact information for State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program posted at the facility. During an observation on 7/25/25, at 11:17 p.m. on Roseview Hallway there was a poster with Ombudsman contact information which only consisted of the phone number, and did not have name, address, or email address listed. During an interview on 7/25/25, at 12507 p.m. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed post the Ombudsman's name, address, and email address as required. 28 Pa. Code: 201.14(a)Responsibility of licensee.28 Pa. Code: 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident observations, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of eleven of 13 residents (Group Resident (GR)1, GR2, GR3, GR4, GR5, GR6, GR7, Resident R16, R64, R113, and R203). Findings Include: During an interview on 7/21/25, at 10:20 a.m. Nurse Aide (NA), Employee E21 was asked how does the facility prevent residents from eloping (leaving a safe area without permission) and replied: We have Wanderguard (a device that alerts staff when a resident leaves a safe area), ones who wander the alarm goes off, elevator locks, and we have to put a code in. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure nurse aides who failed to ensure nurse aides who failed to become certified within four months were not working in the facility for one of four nurse aides ( Nurse Aide trainee Employee E28).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label and date food products, failed to ensure hand washing stations were equipped with essential supplies, and failed to maintain the cleanliness and sanitation of equipment in the Main Kitchen. (Main Kitchen).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of job descriptions, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) failed to effectively manage the facility to prevent the elopement of two resident (Resident R12, and R37), which created an immediate jeopardy situation for two of 36 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide medically related social services for four of four residents reviewed (Resident R2, R13, R153 and R205).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence medication regimen reviews (MRR) were reviewed by the resident's attending physician monthly for three of three residents (Resident R12, R14 and R166).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified Food Service Director to manage the daily operations of the Dietary Department for nine out of 12 months (November through December 2024, and January through July of 2025.
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 R110).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that in preparation for a room change each resident/responsible party received written notice, including the reason for the change before the resident room was changed for one of ten (Resident R153).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility to ensure that a room change was not completed for staff convenience for one of ten residents (Resident R153).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to follow up on a concern/grievance for a resident (Resident R106).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff and resident interviews it was determined was determined that the facility failed to protect resident from neglect for one of three residents (Residents R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, 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 three residents sampled with facility-initiated transfers (Residents R113 and R164).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was implemented related to safety interventions for safe smoking for one of 11 residents (Resident R16).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a assistance with toileting for one out of four residents (Resident R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician of medication refusal and increased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels per physician order and for two of three residents (Residents R153 and R203).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain appropriate physician orders for a urinary catheter (insertion of a tube into the bladder to remove urine) for one out of five sampled residents (Resident R218).
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 (a machine that filters wastes, salts, and fluid from your blood when your kidneys are no longer healthy enough to do this work adequately) center for two of three residents (Resident R6, and R182).
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 (Residents R8 and R203).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records and facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who displayed mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulties received appropriate treatment and services for one of three residents (Resident R12).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with dementia, receives the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for two of six residents reviewed (Resident R12 and R54). Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident with dementia, receives the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for two of six residents reviewed (Resident R12 and R54).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, review of controlled medication reconciliation records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounting of controlled medications on two out of seven medication carts (Cardinal East medication cart and Cardinal South-west medication cart).
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 seven medication carts (Dogwood [NAME] Medication Cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident special eating equipment and utensils for one out of five residents (Resident R54). Findings Include: Review of Residents R54's admission record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE]. Review of Residents R54's care plan dated 12/16/24, revealed the resident is to receive all disposable items from dietary due to my hoarding for safety/sanitary purposes as my hoarding is an infection control concern. Review of Residents R54's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a periodic assessment of care needs) dated 4/22/25, revealed diagnoses of dementia (loss of cognitive functioning- thinking remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities), acquired absence of left leg below the knee, and anxiety. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to properly contain and dispose of garbage in one of three outside dumpsters to prevent the potential for rodent and insect infestation (Middle dumpster).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident records, observations, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented during a dressing change which a created the potential for cross contamination for one out of four sampled residents (Residents R140).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Effective Communication for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Resident Rights for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Infection Control for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Compliance and Ethics for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, personnel files and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to conduct the minimum 12 hours of nurse aide (NA) training per year for one of five NA personnel files (NA Employee E6) and failed to complete annual training on Dementia Management for two of six personnel files (NA Employee E6 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training on Behavioral Health for one of five staff members (Nurse Aide (NA) Employee E6).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that dietary employees properly restrained hair their hair by wearing hair nets and beard guards which created the potential for food borne illness in the Main Kitchen. (Main Kitchen/Cook Employee E2)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, standardized recipes, observations, test tray audits, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to follow standardized recipes, and serve food products at palatable temperatures for the lunch meal served on May 13, 2025. ( Lunch meal 5/13/25).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents food products based on their preferences for four out of four residents (Resident R1, R3, R4, and R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide the lunch meal on 5/13/25, in a timely manner which created an undignified dining experience for the residents of five of five nursing units (Roseview, Dogwood, Sunflower, Rehab Unit, and Cardinal Nursing units)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documents, an audit conducted by the State Ombudsman Office and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman Office of resident transfers and discharges for eight of eight months (a review period of from the facility's completed Medicare/Medicaid Recertification and State Licensure Survey completed on 6/21/24) (6/24, 7/24, 8/24, 9/24, 10/24, 11/24, 12/24, and 1/25) as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide medications and treatments as ordered by the physician for two of five residents (Resident R1 and Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with an enteral feeding tube (a tube inserted in the stomach through the abdomen) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent potential complications for two of three residents (Residents R1 and R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of five residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain resident dignity for two of two residents (Resident R6 and R45).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, resident council group interview, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, homelike environment for one of four residents (Resident R21).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, incident reports, employee statements and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from neglect by not providing the necessary services, which resulted in skin tears for two of five residents (Resident R31 and R50).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise/update care plans for two of eight residents to accurately reflect the current status of the resident (Residents R108 and R115).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide weekly wound assessments for one of two sampled residents with non-pressure skin areas (Resident R46) and the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice and physician orders regarding glucose devices for one of five residents (Resident R108). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Accommodation of Needs dated 4/1/24, indicated the resident's individual needs and preferences shall be accommodated. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately monitor and assess for changes in skin condition for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident R179).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documents, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate interventions for one of three residents (Resident R39) who were at risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop an individualized care plan to address the resident's specific nutritional concerns and preferences for three of seven (Resident R29, R104, and R192) records reviewed.
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 one of three residents reviewed (Residents R172).
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 144).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, manufacturers recommendations, observation, and clinical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residents are free of significant medication errors for one of five residents reviewed (Residents R144).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure and orderly manner for two of five units (Roseview and Sunflower).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility scheduled mealtimes, meal delivery observations, resident council group interviews, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the provision of a nourishing (satisfying to the resident) evening snack when greater than 14 hours elapsed from the supper meal to breakfast the next day for residents including two of five residents sampled (Residents R29 and R104), and failed to ensure that meals were served at regularly scheduled times on two of five units meals were observed (Roseview and Cardinal).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly monitor refrigerator temperatures on one of five nursing unit pantries (Roseview) which created the potential for food borne illness. Findings Include: Review of facility policy Pantry Refrigerators, dated 4/1/24, indicated pantry refrigerators will be monitored on a routine basis to ensure food safety. Refrigerator temperatures will be maintained at 36-46 degrees F. Freezer temps at 0 </= 10 degrees F (zero degrees or less than zero and up to 10 degrees F). Temperatures will be monitored and logged on a daily basis. A thermometer will be placed in the refrigerator and freezer. During an observation on the Roseview Nursing Unit Pantry on 6/20/24, at 12:00 p.m., revealed that the freezer was missing a thermometer in order to document the temperature. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain hospice records for one out of three resident Records (Resident R159).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions for two of eleven residents (Residents R21 and R144) failed to prevent cross contamination during a dressing change for one of three residents (Resident R21) and failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the potential for cross contamination for one of five medication rooms (Dogwood Medication Room)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision that resulted in an elopement for two of two residents (Resident R1, and Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's responsible party of change in condition for one of eight residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection prevention and control monitoring policies for one of three residents (Resident R1). Review of facility policy Transmission Based Precautions 4/28/2023, indicated transmission-based precautions will be initiated when there is reason to believe that a resident has a communicable infectious disease. When transmission-based precautions are implemented the infection preventionist or designee shall post the appropriate notice on the room entrance door so that all personnel will be aware of precautions or be aware that they must see nurse to obtain additional information about the situation before entering the room. The facility will implement a system to alert staff to the type of precautions resident requires. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Criminal Complaint, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse and neglect for six of 40 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) after a noted change in their condition, including a low blood sugar after receiving large doses of insulin by a registered nurse, who later confessed that she intentionally administered the insulin and/or an air bolus to harm the residents, resulting in the residents being transferred to the hospital and/or ceasing to breathe. This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act, clinical records, and a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Criminal Complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a registered nurse followed professional standards regarding care and the administration of medications, after the registered nurse confessed to administering large doses of insulin to residents and/or injecting an air bolus into venous access lines, which caused a change in their conditions and/or death for six of 40 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Criminal Complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to provide medication as ordered by the physician, resulting in significant medication errors after a registered nurse confessed to administering large doses of insulin, which caused a change in their conditions and/or death for six of 40 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure that physician's orders were followed for one of 40 residents reviewed (Resident 22). This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
30 fire safety citations on file: 8 on July 31, 2026, 14 on July 25, 2025, 1 on January 16, 2025, 7 on June 21, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 24, 2025 | Fine | $30,011 |
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) | 3.01 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.76 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.68 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.3% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 30.4% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.20 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 3.11 on weekdays and 2.76 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 38.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.21 in April to June 2025 to 3.01 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 | 3.01 | 0.50 | 3.11 | 2.76 | 38.1% | 0 of 90 | 211 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.99 | 0.44 | 3.09 | 2.72 | 41.9% | 0 of 92 | 214 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.21 | 0.44 | 3.31 | 2.94 | 44.9% | 0 of 92 | 213 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.21 | 0.46 | 3.37 | 2.82 | 40.6% | 0 of 91 | 211 |
| 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 | 19.4 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 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 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.5 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.7 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.7 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sunnyview Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (42.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
42.6% 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. 81 eligible stays.
10.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 90 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 48 eligible stays.
48.1% 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. 52 residents counted.
2.6% 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. 76 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 76 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. 39 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: SUNNYVIEW OPERATING LLC. CMS links this home to Jonathan Bleier, a group of 18 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bleier, Jonathan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 46% | 01/22/2014 |
| Lowenbraun, Chaim | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 12/31/2014 |
| Sod, Yaakov | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 37% | 01/22/2014 |
| Kepple, William | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/18/2014 | |
| Kradel, Tricia | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/25/2014 | |
| Bleier, Jonathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/22/2014 |
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.