Vibra Rehabilitation Center
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Vibra Rehabilitation Center in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering care options. It ranks #244 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 17 in Cumberland County, meaning only a few local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, earning 5 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 42%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. Notably, while there have been no fines, recent inspections revealed concerns, including failure to properly implement infection control measures and inadequate background checks for staff, raising potential safety issues. Overall, while the facility shows strong staffing and no fines, families should be aware of the increasing number of concerns and ensure they weigh both strengths and weaknesses carefully.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #244/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 68 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Pennsylvania nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment after a significant change in condition for one of 13 residents revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accord...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was revealed that the facility failed to ensure that five of 20 residents reviewed during meal service received a t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of personnel training records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each nurse aide was provided with the required in-service training consisting o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent ab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food/beverages in accordance with professional standards for food ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0837
(Tag F0837)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility documentation review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the governing body was responsible and accountable for the facility Quality Assura...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of the facility provided attendance sign-in sheets for the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee and staff interview, it was determined that two of the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to establish Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents the right to examine the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by Federal...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent ab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on document review, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure allegations of neglect are thoroughly investigated for one c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on document review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the required in-service training for nurse aides include dementia management training and resident ab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on document review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure information regarding its transferred residents is forwarded to a representative of the Office of the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on document review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a performance review of every nurse aide at least once every 12 months for one of five nurse aide ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medication was obtained and provided as ordered by the physician for three of three resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents are assessed for medication self-administration for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility documentation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment after a significant change in health status for one of nine reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the faciliy failed to ensure accuracy of the resident assessment for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Findings ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate urinary catheter (tubing inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a ba...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided per order for one of nine residents reviewed (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure infection prevention strategies were implemented for one of two medication cart...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of personnel records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual training on dementia management, behavioral health, and abuse for one of five nu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for two of 14 residents reviewed (Residents 1 and 71).
Findings include:
Review o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 42% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Vibra Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Vibra Rehabilitation Center an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Vibra Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Vibra Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Vibra Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at Vibra Rehabilitation Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 28 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Vibra Rehabilitation Center?
Vibra Rehabilitation 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 VIBRA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 48 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MECHANICSBURG, Pennsylvania.
How Does Vibra Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, Vibra Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Vibra Rehabilitation 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 Vibra Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Vibra Rehabilitation 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 4-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 Vibra Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Vibra Rehabilitation Center has a staff turnover rate of 42%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Vibra Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Vibra Rehabilitation 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 Vibra Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Vibra Rehabilitation 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.