LAUREL CENTER

125 HOLLY ROAD, HAMBURG, PA 19526 (610) 562-2284
For profit - Corporation 130 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
93/100
#67 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: September 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Laurel Center in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, has received an A grade for its trust score, which indicates an excellent reputation and high recommendation status. Ranking #67 out of 653 facilities in the state places it in the top half, while its #3 position out of 15 in Berks County shows it is one of the better options locally. The facility's trend is stable, with only one issue reported in both 2024 and 2025, and it has a relatively low staff turnover rate of 30%, which is better than the state average of 46%. However, there are some concerns, including incidents where food was not stored properly, and residents did not receive adequate assistance during meals, which may affect their dignity. Despite these weaknesses, Laurel Center does not have any fines on record and maintains a good level of RN coverage, which is important for catching potential issues.

Trust Score
A
93/100
In Pennsylvania
#67/653
Top 10%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
1 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (30%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (30%)

    18 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

May 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on May 30, 2025, at 8:40 a.m., revealed the following: A black substance was observed on the kitchen ceiling around and on the vents. The floors in the two walk-in refrigerators and freezer were slippery to walk on, had white, black and red colored substances in the corners and garbage was observed on the floors beneath the shelves. A box of moldy cucumbers and a box of raw mushrooms on the top shelf in refrigerator #1 had spoiled and were dripping fluid onto boxes beneath. Brownies and pudding for lunch were placed in individual serving bowls on trays and stored in walk-in refrigerator #2 on a cart with no individual covering on the bowls or overall covering on the cart. The reach-in freezer had a white substance on the bottom. The floor was slippery, and dust and trash were observed under the shelves in the dry storage area. The floors around the steam table, ovens, grill, and steamer were slippery. A black substance and trash were observed on the floor beneath those appliances. A black substance and trash were observed beneath the dishwasher. Fruit flies were observed flying in and beneath the dishwasher. There was an unpleasant odor at the dish station. In an interview at 11:35 a.m., the Regional Executive Chef stated that the food storage and kitchen were not sanitary, and that food had not been prepared and stored in a sanitary manner. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with dining in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with dining in a manner that promoted and maintained dignity for two of 25 sampled residents. (Residents 23, 46) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 23 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated August 28, 2024, revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment and needed staff assistance with eating. On September 10, 2024, from 12:23 p.m. through 12:31 p.m., registered nurse (RN) 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 23 with lunch. On September 11, 2024, from 12:12 p.m. through 12:18 p.m., nurse aide (NA) 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 23 with lunch. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), dysphagia, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Review of the MDS assessment, dated August 23, 2024, revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment and needed staff assistance with eating. On September 11, 2024, from 12:13 p.m. through 12:20 p.m., RN 2 was observed standing while assisting Resident 46 with lunch and from 12:20 p.m. through 12:34 p.m., NA 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 46 with lunch. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Oct 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with bathing and dressing for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with bathing and dressing for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 38) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 38 had diagnoses that included abnormalities of gait and mobility (an inability to walk or move around without support), muscle weakness, and diabetes. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated July 19, 2023, the resident was alert and oriented and was dependent on staff for bathing and lower body dressing. Review of the care plan revealed that Resident 38 had difficulty caring for himself due to his weakness and interventions included that staff provide assistance with activities of daily living such as washing and dressing. On October 10, 2023, at 11:05 a.m. and 2:21 p.m., and on October 11, 2023, at 10:20 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair with bare feet. His feet had a thick layer of dead skin covering them and blackened toenails. In an interview on October 10, 2023, at 11:05 a.m., the resident stated that he preferred to have his feet cleaned, but that his feet had not been washed in a very long time. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment remained fre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment remained free of accident hazards on one of two nursing units. (North Hall) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, last reviewed September 14, 2023, revealed that all medication carts were to be secured when not supervised by authorized personnel. Observation on October 11, 2023 between 8:37 a.m. and 8:42 a.m. revealed an unlocked medication cart in the North Hall. Several cognitively impaired and independently mobile residents resided on that unit. Observation on October 11, 2023 between 1:10 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., revealed two unlocked medication carts in the North Hall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. In an interview on October 11, 2023 at 03:10 p.m the Director of Nursing confirmed that medication carts were to be locked when unattended by staff. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of resident council minutes, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the food served was palatable on one of two nursin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of resident council minutes, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the food served was palatable on one of two nursing units (South Hall) and for three of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 14, 63, 81) Findings include: During the resident group interview conducted on October 11, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., six of seven residents complained that food, including pizza, was overcooked and difficult to cut and chew. A review of resident council meeting minutes dated April 11, 2023, and September 13, 2023, revealed that the residents previously complainted that food was overcooked. Observation in the kitchen on October 11, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. revealed staff was having difficulty cutting pizza into portions with a metal spatula. A test tray conducted on October 11, 2023, at 1:14 p.m., revealed the pizza was burnt and difficult to chew. In interviews on October 11, 2023, between 1:14 p.m., and 1:30 p.m., Resident 14, 63, 81 stated that the pizza was burned and unpalatable. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(j) Resident rights.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the trash compactor area on October 10, 2023, at 11:53 a.m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the trash compactor area on October 10, 2023, at 11:53 a.m., revealed garbage was not completely contained sanitarily within the trash compactor. Trash had accumulated along the perimeter of the building near the compactor and recycling dumptser. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment for resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment for residents on one of two nursing units. (North Unit) Findings include: Observations on April 22, 2023, on the North nursing unit revealed that the shared bathroom in between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had paint peeling around the perimeter of the sink, and the wall between the sink and door was chipped and crumbling. The reflective laminate on the mirror was peeling off. The shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had peeling paint underneath the paper towel holder and around the perimeter of the sink. The reflective laminate on the mirror was peeling off. In the shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] the wall between the sink and the doorway was chipped and crumbling and the paint was peeling around the perimeter of the sink. The reflective laminate on the mirror was peeling off. In the shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] the paint was peeling around the perimeter of the sink and near the doorway. The shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had peeling paint around the perimeter of the sink and the wall between the doorway and sink was chipped and crumbling. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
Nov 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 30 sampled residents. (Resident 90) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 90 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, muscle weakness, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident required extensive assistance from staff for activities of daily living. On November 16, 2022, at 10:45 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in a wheel chair, and the call bell was on the bed behind the resident at the head of the bed, out of reach. There was a sign in the resident's room that reminded the resident to use the call bell to request assistance from staff. In an interview, the resident stated that she did not know where her call bell was and she knew how to use it to request assistance from staff. On November 16, 2022, at 11:43 a.m., and 12:37 p.m., the resident was again observed out of bed sitting in a wheel chair, the call bell remained behind the resident out of reach. In an interview on November 16, 2022, at 12:27 p.m., Resident 90's representative stated that the call bell was frequently out of reach. 42 CFR 483.10(e)(3) Reasonable Accommodations Needs/Preferences. Previously cited 12/7/21 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade A (93/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
  • • 30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Laurel Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAUREL CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Laurel Center Staffed?

CMS rates LAUREL CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Laurel Center?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at LAUREL CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 6 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Laurel Center?

LAUREL CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 130 certified beds and approximately 114 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HAMBURG, Pennsylvania.

How Does Laurel Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, LAUREL CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Laurel Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Laurel Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAUREL CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Laurel Center Stick Around?

Staff at LAUREL CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 30%, the facility is 16 percentage points below the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 24%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Laurel Center Ever Fined?

LAUREL CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Laurel Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LAUREL CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

LAUREL CENTER

125 HOLLY ROAD, HAMBURG, PA 19526 | (610) 562-2284

A
Trust Grade (93/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
8
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star quality
  • Low turnover (30%)

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025