SCHUYLKILL CENTER

1000 SCHUYLKILL MANOR RD, POTTSVILLE, PA 17901 (570) 622-9666
For profit - Limited Liability company 190 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
28/100
#629 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Schuylkill Center in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and care. It ranks #629 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half of all facilities in the state, and it's the least favorable option in Schuylkill County at #12 out of 12. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 9 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is below average at 2 out of 5 stars, but the 41% turnover rate is slightly better than the state average. There have been no fines reported, which is a positive note, but there are concerns about RN coverage, as it is less than 87% of Pennsylvania facilities. Specific incidents include a critical failure to monitor hot beverages, resulting in a resident suffering a burn injury, and concerns about food safety practices that could lead to unsanitary conditions. While the facility has some strengths, such as no fines, the overall picture indicates serious areas for improvement.

Trust Score
F
28/100
In Pennsylvania
#629/653
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
9 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% 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
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 10 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Pennsylvania average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2025 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and a review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to properly use adequate supervision to prevent a fall for one of f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and a review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to properly use adequate supervision to prevent a fall for one of four sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Review of facility competency training records revealed that when facility staff use a mechanical lift such as a sit to stand lift, two staff members must always be present. Staff also should not ask a resident to stand for a prolonged time, such as when providing care for incontinence. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of a stroke resulting in weakness on one side. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment, Resident 1 was dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. According to the comprehensive plan of care, the facility identified that the resident was at risk for falls, and that staff was to use a sit to stand mechanical lift with two persons to assist the resident with transfers from one surface to another. On September 1, 2025, at 6:30 p.m., a nurse noted that Resident 1 slid out of [the] sit to stand and fell. Review of the facility investigation into the incident revealed that the aides were providing incontinent care at the time of the fall and that one of the staff members left the room when he fell. In an interview on September 6, 2025, at 11:50 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the staff were not following facility safety procedures by using the lift while cleaning the resident and by leaving the resident with a lone staff person for any period of time. CFR 483.25(d) AccidentsPreviously cited 6/11/25 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Aug 2025 2 deficiencies
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation of needs for one of seven sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation of needs for one of seven sampled residents. (Resident 3)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included hemiparesis and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident required assistance from two staff and a mechanical lift for transfers, assistance from two staff for toileting (staff were to provide assistance with toileting as needed), and that the resident had been educated to call staff for assistance. On August 5, 2025, at 11:09 a.m., the resident's call bell was observed to be lit outside the room. At 11:15 a.m., the call bell remained activated. At that time, Resident 3 stated that she rang the call bell to notify staff that she required assistance to the bathroom; a staff member told her they would return with another staff member to provide assistance, but no one had returned. The resident's call bell continued to remain lit at 11:40 a.m., and at that time, Resident 3 stated that no staff member had returned to offer assistance. Staff did not return to Resident 3's room to provide assistance until 11:48 a.m., 39 minutes after the resident's call bell was initially observed to have been activated. In an interview on August 5, 2025, at 1:52 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that staff were to provide a timelier response to the call bell. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for two of seven sampled residents. (Residents 1 and 2) Findings include...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for two of seven sampled residents. (Residents 1 and 2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus. Review of the care plan revealed that staff were to obtain glucometer (device used to measure blood glucose levels) readings and report abnormalities as ordered. A physician's order dated July 11, 2025, directed staff to inject insulin lispro per sliding scale orders and notify the physician for a blood glucose reading of 400 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) or higher. Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed that on July 11, 2025, staff noted a blood glucose level of 438 mg/dL at 5:01 p.m. There was no evidence that the resident's physician was notified of the blood glucose reading that was above 400 mg/dL, per the physician's order. In an interview on August 5, 2025, at 3:10 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that there was no evidence that staff notified the resident's physician of the blood glucose level of 438 mg/dL, per the physician's order. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure). Physician's orders dated April 6, 2025, and May 1, 2025, directed staff to check the resident's blood pressure twice per day and administer clonidine (a medication to treat high blood pressure) as needed, every eight hours if Resident 2's systolic blood pressure was greater than 160 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg), or diastolic blood pressure was greater than 100 mm Hg. Review of Resident 2's clinical record revealed that on July 10, 2025, at 6:14 p.m., staff noted the resident's blood pressure to have been 165/89 mm Hg. On July 26, 2025, at 8:04 a.m., staff noted the resident's blood pressure as 187/107 mm Hg. There was no evidence that staff administered the clonidine at those times on July 10 and 26, 2025, when the resident's systolic blood pressure was greater than 160 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure was greater than 100 mm Hg, per the physician's order. In interviews on August 5, 2025, at 3:28 p.m. and 3:38 p.m., the DON confirmed that there was no evidence that staff administered the medication when the resident's systolic blood pressure was greater than 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure was greater than 100 mm Hg, per the physician's order.28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Jun 2025 6 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, facility policy review, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that hot beverages were monitored and served at a safe tempe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, facility policy review, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that hot beverages were monitored and served at a safe temperature on the nursing units, which placed residents at risk for burn injuries. (Homestead and B Unit) In addition, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and interventions to prevent accidents related to hot beverages for one of 35 sampled residents which resulted in actual harm of a burn to the abdominal area. (Resident 105) These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. Findings include: Review of documentation by the American Burn Association's Burn Prevention Committee entitled, Scald Injury Prevention, revealed that a scald injury occurred when a hot liquid damaged one or more layers of skin and hot beverages were a frequent source of scald burns. Older adults were the most frequent victims of scald injuries due to thin skin, reduced mobility, and reduced ability to feel heat. Hot liquid at a temperature of 155 degrees Fahrenheit (F) could result in a scald injury in one second. Review of the facility policy entitled, Safety of Hot Liquids, last reviewed January 17, 2025, revealed that staff were to ensure that serving temperatures for hot liquids were maintained not more than 180 degrees F. The policy indicated that hot beverages could be served at temperatures greater than 155 degrees F, contrary to the safety parameters outlined by the American Burn Association's Burn Prevention Committee. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 105 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (progressive movement disorder of the nervous system), Lewy body dementia (a type of dementia that damaged part of the brain that affects cognition, behaviors, and movement), Apraxia (a motor disorder caused by damage to the brain which causes difficulty to perform tasks or movements), xerosis cutis (dry skin), and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set assessment (a periodic evaluation of resident care needs) dated April 10, 2025, indicated that the resident was cognitively impaired and required assistance from staff to set up his meals. The care plan identified that Resident 105 was on a restorative nursing program (a program intended to restore or maintain a specific function) for feeding and that staff was to provide supervision for self-feeding during meals. On June 6, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., a nurse noted that while passing medication outside the (Homestead) unit dining room, Resident 105 was heard screaming. The Resident had a coffee cup turned upside down in his hand. A spill was noted to the abdomen and on his lap. Resident 105's clothing was removed and a burn was noted to the center of his abdomen that measured 15 centimeters (cm) by two cm. A verbal order by the physician instructed staff to cleanse the resident's abdominal burn with normal saline solution and apply sliver sulfadiazine ointment (a topical medication primarily used to prevent and treat infections in burn wounds) three times a day for five days and to monitor the burn every shift for changes. In addition, the Resident was to utilize a coffee cup with a lid to prevent future injury. A review of the food temperature form dated June 6, 2025, revealed that the temperature of the hot beverages for dinner were recorded in the kitchen as 174 degrees to 181 degrees F. There was no evidence that the hot beverages were retested prior to serving. On June 8, 2025, at 12:50 p.m., Resident 105 was observed unsupervised in the Homestead dining room drinking coffee. There was no lid on the cup. There was no evidence that the coffee was tested at the point of service. On June 9, 2025, at 11:40 a.m., Resident 105 was observed unsupervised in the Homestead dining room drinking coffee. There was no lid on the cup. There was no evidence that the coffee was tested at the point of service. Observation during a hot beverage audit conducted on the Homestead Unit on June 9, 2025, at 11:55 a.m., at the time the last resident beverage was served, it was determined that the coffee provided to residents and poured from an insulated carafe was 166 degrees F. In an interview during the audit, the Food Service Director confirmed the temperature of the coffee was 166 degrees F. In an interview on June 9, at 11:40 a.m., Activities Employee 1 (AE 1) stated that he did not test the temperature of the coffee before the start of service. He also stated that he did not typically test the temperature of the coffee before serving to residents. There was a lack of evidence to support that any staff were testing the temperature of the coffee before serving to residents. In an interview on June 9, 2025, at 11:45 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN 1) stated that she did not typically test the temperature of the coffee before serving it to residents. In interviews on June 9, 2025, at 12:30 p.m., in the dining room on unit B, Residents 65 and 97 stated that the coffee was served too hot to drink and had to sit before drinking it. In an interview on June 9, 2025, at 1:45 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated that Resident 105 should have had a lid on the coffee cup when observed on June 8 and 9, 2025. On June 10, 2025, at 1:32 p.m., a physician noted that Resident 105 was assessed and that the burned area of the abdomen remained pink in color. On June 9, 2025, at 5:45 p.m., the Administrator was notified that the failure to ensure that hot beverages were served at a safe temperature constituted an Immediate Jeopardy situation at F689 K, and the Immediate Jeopardy template was provided. The facility was informed that a corrective action plan was required. The facility provided an acceptable action plan for removal of Immediate Jeopardy on June 9, 2025, at 9:45 p.m. The facility's action plan contained the following: 1. The temperature of hot beverages would be recorded by a dietary aide on a log at the start of every meal service at the tray line and before the hot beverages leave the kitchen. The temperature would not exceed 150 degrees F before leaving the kitchen. The dietary manager or designee would verify the temperature was taken correctly and sign the procedures on the Tray-Line Food Temperature Log. 2. The facility revised their policy to reflect a safe serving temperature of hot beverages to be between 130 degrees F and 150 degrees F. 3. All scheduled dietary staff who were onsite were educated on the safe service temperature of hot beverages and the procedure to monitor temperatures of hot beverages. The Director of Dining and Nutrition Services will be onsite prior to breakfast June 10, 2025, to educate the dietary staff on the revised Safety of Hot Liquids policy. All nursing and ancillary staff would be educated by June 10, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. Any staff member who was not educated by June 10, 2025, at 11:59 p.m., would not be able to work until the education was completed. Staff would be educated to notify supervisors of unacceptable hot beverage temperatures, and supervisors would be educated to report the high temperature of hot beverages to the dietary department. 4. The Dietary Manager or designee will update the meal tray ticket to ensure adaptive feeding equipment is added to the resident's tray. Nursing staff will ensure that the adaptive equipment is available for the resident's use. An adaptive feeding equipment audit will completed by the Director of Nursing or designee for five residents daily for two weeks and 20 residents weekly for four weeks. 5. The Administrator or designee will conduct audits of the temperature logs daily for two weeks and weekly for four weeks to ensure that temperatures were properly obtained and were within the safe range for service. The results of the audits will be reviewed at the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting. The Quality Assurance Performance Committee will determine the need for further audits. The survey team validated that Immediate Jeopardy was removed on June 9, 2025, at 9:45 p.m., through observation, staff interview, review of staff training, and review of the facility policy and procedure following the facility's implementation of the action plan for removal of the Immediate Jeopardy. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3) Management. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(d) Resident care policies. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, review of manufacturer's instructions, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, review of manufacturer's instructions, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (%) for two of four nursing units observed on medication administration. (Short Stay, B unit) Findings include: Observations of medication administration on June 8, 2025, from 12:50 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and June 9, 2025, from 8:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., revealed 26 medication opportunities with four medication errors that resulted in a medication administration error rate of 15.38%. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 81 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes. A review of the physician's order dated May 15, 2025, revealed that staff was to administer one puff of a tiotropium bromide (Spiriva) inhaler orally every day and was to rinse mouth after use. A review of the physician's orders dated January 21, 2025, revealed that staff was to administer 15 units of insulin glargine (LANTUS) pen-injector subcutaneously every morning and at bedtime and four units of insulin aspart (NovoLog) pen-injector subcutaneously three times a day. A review of the manufacturer's prescribing information revealed that users were to wipe the insulin pen tops with an alcohol swabs prior to attaching a needle to them. Observation of the medication pass on June 9, 2025, at 9:05 a.m., revealed that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 did not direct Resident 28 to rinse his mouth after using the inhaler and did not clean the tops of the two insulin pens with alcohol prior to attaching the needles. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 158 had diagnoses that included chronic pain and dementia. A review of the physician's order dated May 12, 2025, revealed that staff were to administer an extended relief pain medication (acetaminophen) three times a day. A review of the Acetaminophen Extended-Release Tablets Drug Facts information sheet revealed that extended release acetaminophen tablets should not be crushed. Observation of the medication pass on June 8, 2025, at 1:15 p.m., revealed that LPN 2 crushed the acetaminophen extended release tablet prior to administration. In an interview on June 11, 2025, at 9:36 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the four medication administration errors occurred. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility documentation, the facility's meal schedule, resident and staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that meals were served at r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility documentation, the facility's meal schedule, resident and staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that meals were served at regularly scheduled times in accordance with resident needs for three of four nursing units (Homestead, Short Stay, B unit) Findings include: Review of the Food Council Minutes dated May 20, 2025, revealed that Resident 62 had stated that she had to wait a long time for a meal. In a group interview on June 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Resident 130, stated that the meals were frequently delivered late to the unit, it was an on-going problem, and affected her going to scheduled activities. In interviews conducted on June 8 and 9, 2025, between 12:05 p.m. and 1:45 p.m., Residents 28, 36, and 62, stated that delivery of the meal trucks and steam tables was often late. Review of the facility's meal schedule revealed that the scheduled time for steam table delivery for lunch on the Homestead unit was 12:00 p.m., for B-wing Dining Room was 12:00 p.m., and for the Short Stay unit, it was 12:30 p.m. The scheduled time for the second meal truck delivery for B North unit, was 12:57 p.m. There was a grace period of 15 minutes for meal delivery. Observation on June 8, 2025, revealed the Homestead steam table arrived at 12:50 p.m., 35 minutes late. The Short Stay unit steam table arrived at 1:34 p.m., 49 minutes late, and the second meal truck for B North unit arrived at 1:45 p.m., 33 minutes late. In an interview conducted on June 8, 2025, at 1:45 p.m., Resident 86 was observed not to have his meal tray and stated meals were typically late. In an interview on June 11, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed the meal service should have been delivered according to the scheduled delivery times. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee.
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 facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food in a sanitary manner in the dietary department and on one of four ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food in a sanitary manner in the dietary department and on one of four nursing units. (Homestead) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Food Preparation and Service, dated January 17, 2025, revealed that staff were to change gloves between tasks and to wear hair restraints to cover all facial hair so that hair did not contact food. Review of the facility policy entitled, Use-By Dating Guidelines, dated January 17, 2025, revealed that staff were to label opened food items with a use-by date and cheese and lunch meat were to be used within seven days of opening. Observations during the kitchen tour on June 8, 2025, at 9:50 a.m., revealed the following: In cooler one, a large container of tea was not dated. In cooler three, there was an opened bag of sliced turkey lunch meat with an opened date of May 22, 2025. Juices from this bag were dripping onto a box of pork below it and formed a puddle on the cooler floor. There was an opened bag of sliced ham stored directly next to the leaking turkey lunchmeat bag with a use by date of May 29, 2025. In cooler four, there were two bags of opened shredded cheese that were not dated, a bag of lettuce was opened to air and was stored next to an opened bag of cheddar cheese, two crates of milk were stored directly on the floor, and a juice lid was on the floor, in front of the milk cartons. In the trayline refrigerator, there was a white, dried substance on the outside of the bottom door and on the inside on a shelf. There were three utensil drawers that had dried red food debris on the outside of each. There was a flying insect in the area where uncovered slices of pie were being dished and there were two flying insects in the dish room area. In dry storage, there was a fly on the window and a window that was slightly opened. On the windowsill, there was an area of dried liquid and bug and dust debris across the windowsill. Observation of meal service on the Homestead unit on June 10, 2025, from 12:06 p.m. to 12:20 p.m., revealed Dietary Employee (DE) 1 had facial hair that was not covered while serving food. DE 1 was wearing gloves, but he proceeded to touch the phone and then handled resident plates and utensils without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. DE 1 was observed using the same gloved hands to retrieve Salisbury steak from the pan to place on resident meal trays. During the observation period, DE 1 continued to change tasks and did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene after any of the task changes. In an interview on June 10, 2025, the Administrator confirmed that dietary staff were to use utensils to serve the meat instead of their gloved hands. CFR 483.60(i) Food Safety Requirement. Previously cited 5/10/24 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post accurate and current nurse staffing information. Findings include: Observations during tours of the facility cond...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post accurate and current nurse staffing information. Findings include: Observations during tours of the facility conducted on June 8, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., and June 9, 2025, at 8:50 a.m., revealed that staffing information posted in the lobby was dated for June 6, 2025. In an interview on June 11, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that incorrect staffing information was posted. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
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 trash and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the dumpster area on June 8, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., revealed va...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of trash and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the dumpster area on June 8, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., revealed various items on the ground next to the garbage dumpsters which included multiple used gloves, plastic debris, and condiment packets. There was a waffle and a pile of animal droppings on the ground behind the dumpster. One of the dumpsters had four soiled briefs and cloths sticking out from under it. 28 Pa Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Feb 2025 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, clinical record review, staff interview, and a review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to keep one of three sampled residents free from neg...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, clinical record review, staff interview, and a review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to keep one of three sampled residents free from neglect. (Resident 1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, last reviewed January 17, 2025, revealed that it was facility policy to protect all residents from abuse and neglect. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included heart and kidney disease. On February 24, 2025, staff noted that the resident was cognitively impaired, had difficulty communicating her needs, was dependent on staff for mobility, and was unable to use a toilet. According to the care plan, date February 25, 2025, the resident was at risk for developing pressure sores, and staff was to turn and reposition her every two hours. On February 26, 2025, a nurse noted that the resident was placed on a bedpan at approximately 2:30 p.m., and was not assisted off the bedpan until approximately 7:00 p.m. At 7:15 p.m., a nurse assessed the resident and noted a ring-shaped stage 1 pressure sore the size of a bedpan (45 centimeters in diameter) on the resident's buttocks where she was in contact with the bedpan. According to the statement of the evening shift aide (NA 2), she was informed of the resident's care needs, however she failed to assist the resident off the bedpan in a timely manner. In an interview on February 28, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that NA 2 failed to provide care to Resident 1. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services.
Dec 2024 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

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 resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide service...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and hygiene for five of 11 sampled residents who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). (Residents 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and acquired absence of the right leg above the knee. Review of the resident's care plan and clinical record revealed they required assistance with bathing/showering due to their physical condition and were scheduled for showers on Monday and Thursday. There was a lack of documentation that a shower was provided on November 4, 11, and 25, 2024. In an interview on December 2, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., Resident 1 stated they had not refused a shower on those dates. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included personal history of ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, adult failure to thrive, and diabetes mellitus. Review of the resident's care plan and clinical record revealed they required assistance with bathing/showering due to their physical condition and were scheduled for showers on Tuesday and Friday. There was a lack of documentation that a shower was provided on November 8 and 26, 2024. In an interview on December 2, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., Resident 4 stated they had not refused a shower on those dates. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included acute chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, difficulty walking, and weakness. Review of the resident's care plan and clinical record revealed they required assistance with bathing/showering due to their physical condition and were scheduled for showers on Wednesday and Saturday. There was a lack of documentation that a shower was provided on November 9, 23, and 27, 2024. In an interview on December 2, 2024, at 1:05 p.m., Resident 5 stated they had not refused a shower on those dates. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, and diabetes mellitus. Review of the resident's care plan and clinical record revealed they required assistance with bathing/showering due to their physical condition and were scheduled for showers on Wednesday and Sunday. There was a lack of documentation that a shower was provided on November 3, 6, 10, 24, and 27, 2024. In an interview on December 2, 2024, at 11:25 a.m., Resident 6 stated they had not refused a shower on those dates. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, abnormalities of gait and mobility and weakness. Review of the resident's care plan and clinical record revealed they required assistance with bathing/showering due to their physical condition and were scheduled for showers on Tuesday and Friday. There was a lack of documentation that a shower was provided on November 8, 2024. In an interview on December 2, 2024 at 2:05 p.m., Resident 8 stated they had not refused a shower on that date. In an interview on December 2, 2024, at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator and Director of Nursing stated that the residents should have been offered showers on the scheduled dates. CFR 483.10(a) Resident Rights. Previously cited 8/25/24 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Aug 2024 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

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 resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to enhanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to enhance each resident's quality of life by offering showers as scheduled to two of eight sampled residents. (Residents 3,4) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included anxiety and insomnia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was oriented and required staff assistance for bathing. The resident was to receive a shower twice per week. During an interview on August 25, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., the resident reported that she preferred to take a shower twice a week and was not offered the opportunity to do so. Review of documentation in the clinical record revealed that the resident was not offered a shower two of eight scheduled times in the past 30 days. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 had diagnoses that included hemiplegia and diabetes mellitus. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident was oriented and required staff assistance for bathing. During an interview on August 25, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., Resident 4 stated that she preferred to take a shower twice a week and was not offered the opportunity to do so. Review of documentation in the clinical record revealed that the resident was not offered a shower five of nine scheduled times in the past 30 days. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
Jun 2024 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for two of nine sampled residents. (Residents 2, 4) Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for two of nine sampled residents. (Residents 2, 4) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included hypertension and atrial fibrillation. On April 30, 2024, a physician ordered for staff to administer a medication (metoprolol) two times a day to treat the resident's high blood pressure. Staff was not to give the medication if the resident had a systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm/Hg (millimeters of mercury). A review of the May 2024 medication administration record (MAR) revealed that staff administered the medication when the resident's systolic blood pressure was under the established parameter 15 times. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 had diagnoses that included hypertension and atrial fibrillation. On January 6, 2024, the physician ordered that staff administer a medication (carvedilol) once a day to treat the resident's high blood pressure and to withhold the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure was less than 110 mm/Hg and/or heart rate was less than 60 bpm (beats per minute). A review of the April and May 2024 MARs revealed that staff administered the medication when the resident's systolic blood pressure and/or heart rate were lower than the established parameters eight times. During an interview on June 1, 2024, at 12:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the residents' medications were held when their systolic blood pressure or heart rate were below the established parameters. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
May 2024 6 deficiencies
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 residents (Residents 42, 74) on two of four nursing units. (Homestead and C Unit) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 42 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment, and required supervision with eating. Review of Resident 42's current care plan revealed that the resident was on a restorative nursing program for dining and staff was to provide assistance with meals. Observation on May 7, 2024, from 1:37 p.m. through 1:50 p.m., revealed Resident 42 in the dining room on the Homestead nursing unit eating spaghetti with meat sauce with her fingers. At no time did staff redirect or offer assistance to Resident 42. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 74 had diagnoses that included arthritis and vision problems. Review of the MDS assessment, dated January 31, 2024, revealed that the resident was alert, oriented, and required set-up by staff for all meals. Review of Resident 74's current care plan revealed that the resident was on a restorative nursing program for eating, was at risk for nutrition related problems related to varied intakes at mealtimes, and had difficulty completing activities of daily living due to compromised functional ability and impaired vision. Interventions were for staff to set-up the resident for her meals, and to provide as needed assistance. On May 8, 2024, from 12:08 p.m. through 12:40 p.m., in the C unit dining room, Resident 74 was observed to be eating a piece of cake with her hands. Resident 74's hands were covered in cake and icing. At no time did staff redirect or offer any assistance to Resident 74. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(a) Resident rights. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 develop a comprehensive care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 develop a comprehensive care plan to meet each resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for two of 34 sampled residents. (Resident 141, 168) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 141 had diagnoses that included difficulty communicating due to a cognitive issue, hearing loss, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified that Resident 141 was cognitively impaired and used hearing aids. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary indicated that communication was to be addressed in the care plan. There was no evidence that interventions to address Resident 141's communication problems were included in the current care plan. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 168 had diagnoses that included dementia and chronic kidney disease. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 168 was occasionally incontinent of urine and the CAA summary indicated that it was to be addressed in the care plan. There was no evidence that interventions to address Resident 168's urinary incontinence were included in the current care plan. In an nterview on May 10, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. and 10:48 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the identified care areas were not addressed in the residents' care plans. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, and results of a test tray audit, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at appetizing temperatures on one of four ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, and results of a test tray audit, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at appetizing temperatures on one of four nursing units. (C Unit) Findings include: On May 7, 2024, at 1:10 and 1:15 p.m., Residents 66 and 74 stated their lunch was cold to taste. Review of monthly Resident Council and Food Committee meeting minutes from December 2023 through April 2024, revealed a pattern of complaints about food not being served at correct temperatures. In a confidential group interview on May 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., residents also stated that food was often not the right temperature and the pork was too tough. Results of a test tray audit conducted on May 8, 2024, at 12:10 p.m., revealed glazed pork was served at a temperature of 120.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F), scalloped potatoes at a temperature of 111 degrees F, and California blend vegetables at a temperature of 116 degrees F. The food was cool to taste and the pork tough and difficult to chew. On May 8, 2024, from 12:10 p.m. through 12:35 p.m., Residents 63, 74, and 168 were observed eating lunch in the C unit dining room and stated that their pork was tough to chew and was not hot. At 12:20 p.m., Resident 74 stated, The pork is always tough here. At 12:36 p.m., Resident 66 was observed eating her lunch in her room when she stated that her pork was cold and tough to cut and chew, and that she was having difficulty cutting and chewing it. CFR 483(d) Food and drink. Previously cited 6/16/23
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment was provided to two of four sampled residents who used adaptive equipment for meals. (Residents 29, 76) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 29 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dementia, arthritis, and a lack of coordination. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had cognitive impairment and required assistance from staff for all meals. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a nutrition problem related to a history of weight loss and that staff was to provide adaptive equipment including Kennedy cups (spill proof drinking cups that included a lid and a straw) for all meals. On May 3, 2023, the dietitian documented that the resident continued to benefit from the use of adaptive equipment at meals. On May 8, 2024, at 1:10 p.m., Resident 29 was observed in bed immediately after having finished with lunch. A disposable foam cup with a straw was at the bedside and not a Kennedy cup. In an interview at that time, Resident 29 stated that was the type of cup the resident usually received. On May 9, 2024, at 12:26 p.m., Resident 29 was in the dining room eating lunch and was served coffee in a regular mug without a lid or a straw and juice in a regular juice cup without a lid or straw. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 76 had diagnoses that included paralysis on one side and vision problems. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had cognitive impairment and required supervision with eating. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a nutrition problem related to diabetes and impaired skin integrity and that staff was to provide adaptive equipment including a Kennedy cup with a straw for all meals. On April 23, 2024, the dietitian documented that the resident continued to benefit from the use of a Kennedy cup at meals. On May 7, 2024, at 1:14 p.m., and May 8, 2024, at 12:47 p.m., Resident 76 was observed eating lunch and was using a regular white foam cup with a straw, a red juice cup, and a coffee mug. All cups had no lids or straws. In an interview on May 10, 2024, at 9:35 a.m., the Director of Nursing stated that Residents 29 and 76 were to have had their drinks served in Kennedy cups. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, facility documentation, results of a test tray, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the pre-approved menus on one of four nursing units. (C ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, facility documentation, results of a test tray, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the pre-approved menus on one of four nursing units. (C Unit) Findings include: Review of monthly Resident Council and Food Committee meeting minutes from December 2023, through April 2024, revealed a pattern of complaints about portion size of food at mealtimes. On May 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., residents in a confidential group meeting stated that portion sizes were often too small. Review of the facility menus revealed the lunch meal on May 8, 2024, was to include three ounces of glazed pork medallions and four ounces of California blend vegetables. Results of a test tray audit conducted on May 8, 2024, from 12:05 p.m. through 12:20 p.m., revealed staff served two ounces of glazed pork and three ounces of California blend vegetables. In an interview on May 8, 2024, the Dietary Manager confirmed that the incorrect portion size was given for the entree and vegetables for the lunch cart delivered to C Unit. 28 Pa. Code 211.6(a) Dietary services.
CONCERN (F)

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 food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: In an interview on May 7, 2024, at 9:30...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: In an interview on May 7, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., the Director of Dietary Services stated that refrigerated foods were to be labeled and dated when opened and used within three days. Observation of the kitchen during a tour on May 7, 2024, at 9:32 a.m., revealed the following in the walk-in refrigerator: a container of opened pumpkin puree dated May 2, 2024, opened raspberry glaze dated April 25, 2024, pureed peaches dated May 3, 2024, a dish of cottage cheese that was undated, a dish of salad dated May 2, 2024, and a container of spaghetti with sauce without a date. In reach-in refrigerator 1, there was a dish of chopped lettuce that was browning dated May 2, 2024, and in reach-in refrigerator 3, there was opened ham luncheon meat dated April 29, 2024, opened turkey luncheon meat dated April 29, 2024, and a container of chicken dated May 2, 2024. In the walk-in freezer, there was a large accumulation of ice buildup on food items and a container of ground beef that was opened and had ice buildup directly on the beef. In the food preparation area, near the microwave oven there were two opened containers of cereal that were undated. In the dry storage area, there was an opened, undated bag of noodles. There were chunks of tile missing on the floor near the reach-in freezer, near the cooler across from the ice machine, and under the coffee machine. CFR 483.60 Food Procurement Store/Prepare/Serve-Sanitary. Previously cited 6/16/23 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Jun 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (F)

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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Review of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Food Receiving and Storage, last reviewed July 1, 2022, revealed that all foods stored in the refrigerator would be covered, labeled, and dated with a use by date and dry foods that are stored in bins would be labeled and dated with a use by date. In an interview on June 13, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., the interim Dietary Manager stated that foods were kept in the refrigerator for up to three days. Observation of the kitchen during a tour on June 13, 2023, at 8:15 a.m. revealed the following: There were numerous black and brown spots on the ceiling tiles and an uncovered light in the dishroom. There was a large fan in the dishroom with a heavy accumulation of dust on the fan blades. The vents in the ceiling were covered in dust. The grease trap near the three compartment sink had built up dirt and debris on the door. The three compartment sink drain was leaking. The floor under the sink contained brown and black stains. In the cook's area there were containers of opened margarine and thickener that were not labeled or dated. The floor in the cook's area had numerous brown stains. The sink in the cook's area was leaking. In the food preparation area there were containers of flour and sugar that were not labeled or dated. In the walk-in refrigerator, there was condensation leaking from the cooling fan. There was a container of dill pickle chips with a heavily soiled lid. There was a container of strawberry jello with a use by date of May 29, 2023, pureed blueberries with a use by date of June 4, 2023, macaroni and cheese with a use by date of June 9, 2023, a container of tuna that was not dated, lettuce with a use by date of June 2, 2023, and sliced tomatoes that were not dated. In reach-in refrigerator one, there were two packs of opened American cheese slices that were not dated and a container of marinara sauce dated June 9, 2023. In reach-in refrigerator two, there was a container of opened hot dogs that were not labeled or dated. In the dry storage area there were two bags of opened pasta that were not dated. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, homelike environment on two of four ...

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 maintain a safe, clean, homelike environment on two of four nursing units. (Short Stay, C Wing) Findings include: Observation on June 13, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. through June 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., on the Short Stay nursing unit revealed wet towels on the window sill in room [ROOM NUMBER], and the window sill and wall near the window were damp in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Observation on June 13, 2023, at 8:46 a.m., through June 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., on the C Wing nursing unit revealed curtains detached from the curtain rod in rooms [ROOM NUMBER]. In rooms [ROOM NUMBER] the wall trim by the entrance door near the floor was detached from the wall. In room [ROOM NUMBER] (B bed) the tray table was wobbly and unsteady. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on resident interviews, review of facility documentation, observation, and results of a test tray evaluation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interviews, review of facility documentation, observation, and results of a test tray evaluation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at acceptable temperatures on one of four nursing units. (B Wing) Findings include: In interviews on June 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., Residents 46 and 86 stated that food was often served cold. In an interview on June 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., Resident 68 stated that the meals were consistently cold. During the resident council interview on June 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., residents reported the meals were not palatable and that the meals were frequently cold. Review of the facility's Resident Tray Assessment form revealed that the temperature for the starch and vegetable should be greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit when served. A test tray conducted on June 14, 2023, at 12:40 p.m., on the B Wing nursing unit, revealed Lyonnaise potatoes, which was considered the starch, at a service temperature of 111 degrees Fahrenheit, and peas at a service temperature of 112 degrees Fahrenheit. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(j) Resident rights.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain adequate staffing in the dietary department. Findings include: Observation of the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain adequate staffing in the dietary department. Findings include: Observation of the lunch meals on June 13 through 16, 2023, revealed residents were served their meals in styrofoam containers and with plastic utensils. During the resident council interview on June 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., residents reported concerns with the dining experience because their meals were frequently served in disposable containers with plastic utensils. In an interview conducted on June 13, 2023, at 8:25 a.m., the interim Dietary Manager stated that the kitchen had multiple open positions. As a result, there was insufficient staff available during meals to wash dishes; therefore, residents were served meals on disposable dishware. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(6) Management.
Jan 2023 2 deficiencies
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

Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable environment on one of four nursing units. (B Wing nursing unit) Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable environment on one of four nursing units. (B Wing nursing unit) Findings include: On January 7, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on the B Wing nursing unit, Residents 1, 4, 5, and 6 stated that the shower room's air temperature was cold and has been that way for weeks. Resident 3 stated that she received a shower in the morning and that the air temperature was cold. Observation of the B Wing nursing unit shower room on January 7, 2023, at 1:10 p.m. revealed that the temperature in the room was 64 degrees Farenheit and that there were soiled towels and soiled gloves on the floor. In an interview on January 7, 2023, at 5:30 p.m., the Maintenance Director stated that the thermostat for the shower room was the same thermostat that controlled the temperature at the B unit nurse's station and that he had previously informed nursing. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on resident interview, review of facility documentation, observation, and results of a test tray evaluation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that is palatable and at a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, review of facility documentation, observation, and results of a test tray evaluation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that is palatable and at acceptable temperature on one of four nursing units. (B Wing nursing unit) Findings include: On January 7, 2023, from 12:50 p.m. through 4:30 p.m., Residents 1, 4, 5, and 6, stated that their meals are consistently cold. Review of the facility's Resident Tray Assessment form, revealed that the temperature for the hot entrée and vegetable should be greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit at service time. A test tray conducted on January 7, 2023, at 12:41 p.m., on the B Wing nursing unit, revealed a cabbage casserole, which was considered the hot entrée, at a service temperature of 113 degrees Fahrenheit, and mixed vegetables at a service temperature of 105 degrees Fahrenheit. In an interview Employee 1 confirmed the menu items were below facility standards for food temperatures. 28 Pa. Code 201.29 (j) Resident rights.
Dec 2022 2 deficiencies
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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were assisted with bathing in accordance with individual preference for two of four sampled residents. (Residents 1, 2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease and glaucoma. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was alert and oriented, and required physical assistance with bathing. In an interview on December 9, 2022, at 11:05 a.m., Resident 1 stated it was her preference to receive a shower twice a week and that she did not always receive one. According to the care plan, the resident needed assistance with bathing and staff were to provide her a shower twice weekly on her scheduled shower day. Review of the shower summaries for November and December 2022, revealed that showers were not given seven of ten times. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included diabetes and a fractured fifth toe. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was alert and oriented and was totally dependent on staff for bathing. In an interview on December 9, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., Resident 2 stated it was her preference to receive a shower twice a week and that she did not always receive one. According to the care plan, the resident needed assistance with bathing and staff were to provide her a shower twice weekly on her scheduled shower day. Review of the shower summaries for November and December 2022, revealed that showers were not given four of ten times. In an interview conducted on December 9, 2022, at 1:42 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documented evidence that the aformentioned residents were offered showers according to their schedules. CFR 483.10(a)(1)(2)(b)(1)(2) Resident Rights/Exercise of Rights. Previously cited 7/15/22 28 Pa. Code 201.29(j) Resident rights. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician ordered medications were obtained from the pharmacy for two of four sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician ordered medications were obtained from the pharmacy for two of four sampled residents. (Residents 1, 3) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease and glaucoma. On January 14, 2022, the physician ordered staff to administer latanaprost solution eye drops one time a day. On November 10, 2022, the physician ordered staff to administer vitamin D3 one time a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2022, revealed the resident did not receive the latanaprost solution eye drops on November 12, 2022, at 9:05 p.m. Review of the MAR for December 2022, revealed the resident was not administered the vitamin D3 on December 6, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Review of nursing documentation for the dates of the missed eye drop dose and vitamin D3 revealed the medication had not been delivered from the pharmacy. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included diabetes, glaucoma, and dry eye syndrome. On January 5, 2022, the physician ordered staff to administer brimonidine tartrate solution eye drops two times a day and on June 17, 2022, the physician ordered staff to administer Refresh Tears solution eye drops two times a day. Review of the MAR for November 2022, revealed the resident did not receive the brimonidine tartrate solution eye drops on November 29, 2022, at 6:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m., and November 30, 2022, at 6:00 a.m. Review of the MAR revealed the resident was not administered the Refresh Tears solution eye drops on November 6 and 7, 2022, at 8:00 a.m. Review of nursing documentation for the dates of the missed eye drop doses revealed the medication had not been delivered from the pharmacy. During an interview conducted on December 12, 2022, at 1:42 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documentation to support that the residents' medications were available for their scheduled administration. 28 Pa. Code 211.9(a)(d) Pharmacy services. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
  • • 41% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 28/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Schuylkill Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SCHUYLKILL CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Schuylkill Center Staffed?

CMS rates SCHUYLKILL CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Schuylkill Center?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at SCHUYLKILL CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 20 with potential for harm, and 6 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Schuylkill Center?

SCHUYLKILL CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 190 certified beds and approximately 169 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in POTTSVILLE, Pennsylvania.

How Does Schuylkill Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SCHUYLKILL CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Schuylkill Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Schuylkill Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SCHUYLKILL CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Schuylkill Center Stick Around?

SCHUYLKILL CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Schuylkill Center Ever Fined?

SCHUYLKILL 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 Schuylkill Center on Any Federal Watch List?

SCHUYLKILL 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.