Home / Pennsylvania / Canonsburg
201 Village Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317 · Washington County · (724) 746-1300
104 certified beds, about 64 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395289 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 4, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 62 health citations since December 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $51,111 in the last three years; the largest was $51,111, and the latest is dated June 4, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.15 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.53 of those hours.
65.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Wecare Centers, an affiliated group of 13 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 62 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility review of policy, manufacturer's instructions, clinical records, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify physicians of elevated or decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels, failed to assess residents for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and failed to ensure the provision of insulin (injectable medication to treat high blood sugar) according to physicians' orders and manufacturing instructions which resulted in immediate jeopardy for eight of fourteen residents (R4, R6, R11, R19, R25, R32, R47, and R56). Review of the United States Food and Drug Administration prescribing information dated 03/2013, indicated that Humalog (insulin lispro) is a rapid acting insulin and directed to Administer within 15 minutes before a meal or immediately after a meal. [...]
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 provide care for residents with diabetes (a metabolic disorder in which the body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time) consistent with standard nursing practices. This failure resulted in facility failures to notify physicians of elevated or decreased Capillary Blood Glucose (CBG) levels, failures to assess residents for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and failures to ensure the provision of insulin (injectable medication to treat high blood sugar) according to physicians' orders and manufacturing instructions which resulted in immediate jeopardy for eight of fourteen residents (R4, R5, R11, R19, R25, R32, R47, and R56).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, federal regulation, and a staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transfer notices to representatives of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for four of six months (December 2025 through March 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policy and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that fresh drinking water was consistently readily accessible to residents to promote adequate hydration, meet resident preferences, and maintain their comfort for four of 20 residents reviewed (Residents 11, 19, 49, and 56).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility to make certain that medical supplies were properly stored and/or disposed of in one of two medication rooms (B/C Medication Room).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food products at safe temperatures in the Main Kitchen, which created the potential for foodborne illness in one of one deep freezer. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Food Storage dated 8/27/2025, indicated that the facility will maintain proper temperatures in all storage areas. The proper temperature ranges for freezer units are 0 degrees Fahrenheit or below. During an observation of the main kitchen on 3/24/26, at 1:00 p.m., it was revealed the freezer door was ajar and the external temperature gauge read 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The freezer door was closed and at 1:25 p.m. the temperature reading was noted to be 20 degrees Fahrenheit. At 1:40 p.m. the temperature of the freezer was noted to be 20 degrees Fahrenheit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident observations, and 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 10 of 15 residents (Residents R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, and R10) and for four of five staff members (Employee E1, E2, E3, and E4). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, Answering the Call Light dated 8/27/25, indicated, The purpose of this procedure is to ensure timely responses to the resident's requests and needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food products in the Main Kitchen, which created the potential for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify physicians of increased and decreased capillary blood glucose (CBG) levels for two of five residents (Resident R11 and R52).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident council group interview, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the failed to provide a clean, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for clean public shower areas and equipment for two of two resident shower rooms (B/C and A/E shower rooms), failed to provide a clean, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for two of four resident hallways (B/C Hallways), and two of two resident lounges B/C and A/E resident lounges).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to update a care plan for two of six residents (Residents R50 and R58) to accurately reflect the current status of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policies, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident receives proper treatment and services to maintain hearing abilities for five of eight residents reviewed for hearing (Residents R3, R26, R36, R48 and R23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical record, review of facility policy, interview with staff and residents, it was determined the facility failed to provide tracheostomy care consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident with a tracheostomy (Resident R25), and failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and maintain respiratory equipment for five of five residents (Resident R25, R41, R50, R65, and R74).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified Food Service Director to manage the daily operations of the Dietary Department for 12 out of 12 months (February 2025 through January 2026).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility admission documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident rights to make informed decisions and choices in the residents' welfare by making certain residents understand the conditions of a binding arbitration agreement and failed to ensure the agreement is explained to the resident and his or her representative in a form and manner that he or she understands, including in a language the resident and his or her representative understands for two of five residents (Resident R27 and R48).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection control practices to prevent the potential for cross contamination while during wound care for one of six residents (Resident R8), failed to maintain two ice machines in a sanitary manner ( A/E wing and B/C wing ice machines), failed to properly monitor residents in room personal refrigerator temperatures for two of two residents (Residents R33 and R64) which created the potential for food borne illness and failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one of eight residents (Resident R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a fully functioning resident call bell system that allows residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area in two of five rooms (Resident R10 and R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident from neglect for one of three residents resulting in pain and the need for Xray's to rule out possible injuries/ fractures for one of three residents (Resident R11).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, information provided by the facility, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to promptly conduct a thorough investigation to rule out neglect and implement corrective action and submit the results of the completed investigation to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident as evidenced by one of three residents reviewed (Resident R11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility provided documentation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of three residents (Resident R11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide prescribed treatment and services related to an implanted venous port (a small implantable device placed under the skin usually in the chest to provide reliable long term venous access) for one of three residents (Resident R73), and failed to properly care for total parenteral nutrition (TPN - a method of delivering essential nutrients - fats, proteins, carbohydrates, electrolytes, and vitamins directly into the bloodstream via an intravenous (IV) catheter, bypassing the digestive system)for one of three residents (Resident R74).
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 four residents (Resident R7 and R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct accurate assessments to ensure that bedrails were used to meet residents' needs and the risks associated with bedrail usage for one of two residents (Residents R78).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate behavioral health services to maintain the highest practicable well-being for one of two sampled residents (Resident R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, resident interviews, clinical records, 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 observed (Resident R73).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications properly, for one of two medication carts (A side medication cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or their representative received written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of transfer for five of six residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident R8, R9, R23, R57, and R79). Findings Include: Review of federal regulation S483.15(d) Notice of Bed-Hold Policy, indicated, facilities must provide written information about these policies to residents prior to and upon transfer for such absences. This information must be provided to all facility residents, regardless of their payment source. These provisions require facilities to issue two notices related to bed-hold policies. The first notice could be given well in advance of any transfer, i.e., information provided in the admission packet. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS - a periodic assessment of care needs) accurately reflected the resident's status for two of six residents (Resident R50, and R65).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medical records on each resident are complete and accurately documented for of four of nine residents (R8, R18, R46, and R57). The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which gives instructions for completing Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - periodic assessment of care needs) dated October 2025, indicated that Section C: Cognitive Patterns, Question C0100 Should Brief Interview for Mental Status Be Conducted? (BIMS) should be coded as 0 if the resident is rarely/never understood, or it should be coded 1, and the BIMS assessment should be completed if the resident is at least sometimes understood. The BIMS total score suggests the following distributions:13-15: cognitively intact8-12: moderately impaired0-7: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and residents' financial account records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to return resident funds within 30 days of discharge/death to the appropriate party for one of five residents sampled (Resident R1 and Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility provided policies and documentation, clinical records, and resident, family, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from resident-to-resident sexual abuse. This failure resulted in a resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior touching non-consenting residents, which created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for five of 67 residents (Resident R2, R3, R4, R5, R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of state laws, facility policy and documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to report allegations of abuse for four of 67 residents (Resident R2, R3, R5, and R6). This failure resulted in a resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior touching non-consenting residents, which created an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary supervision of a resident with known sexually inappropriate behaviors. This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy situation for five of 67 residents (Resident R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical records, staff interviews and resident interviews it was determined the facility failed to submit, document and/or follow-up on concerns/grievances presented by staff and residents (staff and residents wished to remain anonymous).
Inspectors wroteFinding include:Review of the facility policy Abuse and Neglect-Clinical Protocol dated 1/27/25, previously reviewed 10/23/24, indicated abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical conditions, cause physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documents, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to investigate allegations of abuse for four of 61 residents (Resident R2, R3, R5, and R6). This failure resulted in a resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior touching non-consenting residents.
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 protect residents from resident-to-resident sexual abuse. This failure resulted in a resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior touching a non-consenting resident, which created an Immediate Jeopardy for five of 67 residents (Resident R2, R3, R4, R5, R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, cited deficiencies from previous surveys, review of plan of correction documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program failed to correct previously cited deficiencies. This has the potential to affect 5 of 67 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post complete and current contact information for the Grievance Officer in the facility on three of three nursing units (Bird Room (Main area near dining room), Solarium C and Solarium E).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to meet resident care needs for residents to be in a relationship for four of 67 residents (Residents R1, R7, R21, and R35).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and facility document review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary services to meet the psychosocial needs resulting in the commitment of resident-to-resident sexual abuse for one of two residents with unmonitored hypersexual behaviors (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that one of 26 residents was free from sexual abuse that resulted in the actual harm of a newly diagnosed sexually transmitted infection for one of 26 residents (Resident R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review,facility submitted documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse in the required timeframe for one of nine residents (Resident R29).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain call light tubes were in reach for one of two residents with a breath activated call light response system (Resident R53).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident council minutes, resident and group interviews and interviews with staff and facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents were offered a private group meeting during resident council for 10 of 10 residents interviewed (Resident R10, R19, R26, R31, R40, R43, R50, R52, R54, R56).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify resident representative and/or medical providers of a change in condition for two of six residents (Resident R29 and R62).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment on one of two nursing units (A/E Nursing Unit) and for five of fourteen residents (Residents R15, R52, R53, R62, and R66).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that MDS assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for eight of sixteen residents (Resident R30, R43, R54, R56, R64, R66, R69, and R70).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to possibly prevent hospitalization and failed to provide care and services after hospitalization for one of four residents (Resident R22). Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 1/16/25, included diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a group of progressive lung disorders characterized by increasing breathlessness), diabetes (a metabolic disorder in which the body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time), and heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment for two of five residents ordered fall precautions (Resident R41 and R63) and on one of two nursing units (A/E Nursing Unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care/oxygen services consistent with professional standards of practice for one of four residents (Resident R22).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that medications and biologicals were properly disposed of in one of two medication rooms (Units B/C medication room).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain residents who requested the pneumococcal vaccine were provided the vaccination for six of seven residents (Resident R43, R54, R56, R64, R69, and R70).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors for one of three residents (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy and documentation, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate response to grievances from resident council for six of six months ( January 2024, February 2024, March 2024, April 2024, May 2024, June 2024).
Inspectors wroteBased on a resident group interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities based on the identified preferences/interests for seven of seven residents to enhance the resident's quality of life (Residents R100, R101, R102, R103, R104, R105 and R106).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, Resident Council Meeting minutes, facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Activities Department had a qualified director to oversee the activities program for three out of six months (April, May, June).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical and facility record review, facility submitted documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for one of six residents (Resident R1). Review of the facility policy Resident Elopement dated 1/17/24, indicated cognitively impaired residents at risk for elopement will be appropriately monitored to reduce the potential for injury. Elopement is defined as a resident leaving the physical structure of the facility without knowledge of facility staff. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, comfortable, home-like environment for one of two resident shower rooms (C-Wing shower room).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of vendor invoices, facility financial documents, and interviews with vendors and staff, it was determined that facility failed to pay bills in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility financial documents, interview with vendors and staff, it was determined that Corporate failed to pay bills in a timely manner for services without which the residents' health and safety are impacted for 20 of 71 residents (Residents R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, and R20).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, grievances from July 2023, through November 2023, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with access to their personal funds/petty cash for two of three residents (Residents R10 and R11).
28 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 4, 2026, 14 on February 10, 2025, 11 on December 8, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 4, 2026 | Fine | $51,111 |
| September 12, 2025 | Payment Denial | 41 days from October 11, 2025 |
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) | 3.15 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.53 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.97 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.77 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.85 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.4% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 73.1% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.57 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 3.22 on weekdays and 2.97 on weekends, 8% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.15 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 | 3.15 | 0.53 | 3.22 | 2.97 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 64 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.23 | 0.66 | 3.35 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.21 | 0.82 | 3.36 | 2.85 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 66 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.65 | 3.41 | 2.92 | 2.3% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| 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 | 14.4 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.4 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.4 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.9 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Wecare at South Hills Rehabilitation and Nrsg Ctr's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 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. 17 eligible stays.
9.5% 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. 31 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 8 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 14 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. 26 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 5 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: SOUTH HILLS OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Wecare Centers, a group of 13 nursing homes averaging 1.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wc South Hills Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2024 |
| Kja Pinnacle LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Grinspan, Aryeh | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Korn, Eli | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Wielgus, Gedaliah | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Korn, Miriam | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Gph Canonsburg LP | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Grinspan, Aryeh | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Plumm, Felicia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Trapanotto, Vincent | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Wielgus, Gedaliah | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Wecare HCC LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Plumm, Felicia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Trapanotto, Vincent | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Wielgus, Gedaliah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Andrews, Heather | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Finn, Nicholas | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Linam, Kim | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Rasmussen-Jones, Holly | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Schwartz, Alan | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Beverly Enterprises - Pennsylvania, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Beverly Health and Rehabilitiation Services, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Drumm Intermediary Sub Co LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Drumm Merger Co | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Drumm Merger Co Sub LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Fillmore Strategic Investors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Geary Property Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Gph Canonsburg LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Pa 3 Six Master LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/07/2025 | |
| Pearl Senior Care, LLC. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Washington State Investment Board | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Wecare HCC LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Grinspan, Aryeh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Plumm, Felicia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Trapanotto, Vincent | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/07/2025 | |
| Wielgus, Gedaliah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2024 |
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.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.