WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1000 EAST WYOMISSING BLVD, READING, PA 19611 (610) 376-3991
For profit - Limited Liability company 103 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#253 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Wyoming Health and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families looking for care. The facility ranks #253 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of all facilities in the state, though it is #10 out of 15 in Berks County, meaning there are better local options available. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. While staffing is a strength with a 3/5 star rating, turnover is at 52%, which is average for the state. However, there are concerns about RN coverage, which is lower than 87% of Pennsylvania facilities, potentially impacting resident care. Recent inspector findings highlighted several issues, including the failure to verify the professional licenses of two newly hired staff members, a lack of documentation for a resident's personal belongings upon admission, and the failure to implement physician's orders for blood tests for three residents. These incidents suggest gaps in care and oversight that families should consider while weighing the facility's strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while Wyoming Health and Rehabilitation Center has some positive attributes, there are notable concerns that families should carefully evaluate.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In Pennsylvania
#253/653
Top 38%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 52%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

Aug 2025 4 deficiencies
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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to verify professional license/registration status prior to the start of employm...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to verify professional license/registration status prior to the start of employment for two of five newly hired employees. (Employee 1 and Employee 2) Findings include:A review of the facility policy entitled, Abuse Policy- Prevention and Management, dated August 2024, revealed that the facility would conduct screening for all potential hires. This would include an inquiry to the state nurse aide registry, and they would record the results of the screening. Employee 1 (E1) had been working in the facility as a nurse aide since May 26, 2025, and an inquiry to the state nurse aide registry was not completed until August 27, 2025.Employee 2 (E2) had been working in the facility as a nurse aide since June 30, 2025, and an inquiry to the state nurse aide registry was not completed until August 27, 2025.In an interview on August 28, 2025, at 9:25 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documented evidence that the state nurse aide registry verification results for E1 and E2 were done prior to the start of employment per facility policy.28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.19(3) Personnel policies and procedures.
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 F0620 (Tag F0620)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document an inventory of personal belonging on admission for one of 19 sample residents. (Resident 58)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Inventory/Personal Belongings, dated January 2025, revealed that a documented inventory of all residents' personal belongings was to be completed upon admission by the nursing department and that the inventory was to be kept in the clinical record. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no evidence in the clinical record that the facility documented an inventory of the resident's personal belongings. In an interview on August 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented inventory of the resident's personal belongings in the clinical record. 28 Pa Code 201.18(b)(2) Management. 28 Pa Code 201.24 (c) admission policy.
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

**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 that physician's order...

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 ensure that physician's orders were implemented for three of 19 sampled residents. (Residents 12, 51, and 100)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 12 was admitted on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease. On August 15, 2025, a physician ordered that staff obtain a blood test (a Complete Blood Count) on August 18, 2025. A review of Resident 12's clinical record revealed there was no documented evidence to support that the blood test was obtained as ordered. In an interview on August 28, 2025, at 9:29 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the ordered blood work was not done, and that nursing staff did not communicate the order to the laboratory. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 51 was admitted on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease, failure to thrive, and congestive heart failure. On August 2, 2025, a physician ordered that staff weigh the resident every day. A review of Resident 51's weights revealed that there was no documented evidence to support that staff weighed the resident on August 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, and 23, 2025. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 100 was admitted on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included liver cell cancer and edema. On June 28, 2025, a physician ordered that staff weigh the resident every day. A review of Resident 100's weights revealed that there was no documented evidence to support that staff weighed the resident on July 4 and 6, 2025, and August 4, 10, 12, 16, and 20, 2025. In an interview on August 28, 2025, at 9:10 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documentation to support that staff weighed Residents 51 and 100 as ordered by the physician. CFR 483.25 Quality of CarePreviously cited 10/24/24 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of transfer(s), including the reasons for th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of transfer(s), including the reasons for the moves, and Ombudsman information, in writing upon transfer and failed to provide copies of the written transfer notices to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for five out of five residents who were transferred out of the facility. (Residents 7, 11, 12, 13, and 51) Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 was transferred to the hospital on August 11, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding the transfer to the hospital and that the facility sent a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 11 was transferred to the hospital on May 13, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding the transfer to the hospital and that the facility sent a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 12 was transferred to the hospital on May 27, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding the transfer to the hospital and that the facility sent a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 13 was transferred to the hospital on May 23, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding the transfer to the hospital and that the facility sent a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 51 was transferred to the hospital on July 5, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence to support that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided with written information regarding the transfer to the hospital and that the facility sent a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.In an interview on August 28, 2025, at 12:10 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the notifications of transfer were not sent for these residents and resident representatives and that the written copies of the transfer notices were not sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee.
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
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 staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post accurate and current nurse staffing information. Findings include: During a tour of the facility conducted ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post accurate and current nurse staffing information. Findings include: During a tour of the facility conducted on August 9, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., the staffing information that was posted in the lobby was dated for August 8, 2025. In an interview on August 9, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that incorrect staffing data was posted. 28 Pa Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 101) Findi...

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 one of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 101) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 101 had diagnoses that included hypertension, heart disease, and dementia. Physician's orders dated July 25, 2024, directed staff to administer amlodipine and metoprolol (medications for high blood pressure) once daily; staff were to hold the medications if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the measure of the pressure when the heart beats) was below 100 millimeters mercury (mmHg). Staff were to also hold the metoprolol if the resident's heart rate was below 60 beats per minute. Review of the medication administration records for August and September 2024 revealed no evidence that staff obtained the resident's blood pressure before they administered amlodipine 12 times in August and one time in September. There was no evidence that staff obtained the resident's blood pressure or heart rate before they administered metoprolol eleven times in August and one time in September. In an interview on October 24, 2024, at 11:28 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no evidence that staff obtained and recorded the resident's blood pressure and heart rate prior to administration of the medications, per the physician's order. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide nail care to promote foot health for one of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 12) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 12 had diagnoses that included protein calorie malnutrition and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment. A physician's order dated September 13, 2024, directed staff to consult podiatry services as needed. On October 23, 2024, at 11:22 a.m., the resident was observed in bed; her toenails were long and jagged. Review of a facility resident list dated July 15, 2024, revealed that the resident was identified as in need of podiatry services at that time. There was no evidence that the resident was seen by a podiatrist or provided with foot care. In an interview on October 24, 2024, at 9:34 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident was identified to need podiatry services in July 2024 and had not been seen by a podiatrist. CFR 483.25(b)(5) Foot care Previously cited 10/21/2023 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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 provide nail ca...

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 provide nail care to maintain good foot health for one of six sampled residents. (Resident 2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had no cognitive impairments and required partial to moderate staff assistance for care. On July 21, 2023, the physician ordered for a podiatry consult as needed. Review of the wound consultant's note on August 9, 2023, revealed that a podiatry consult was recommended to trim Resident 2's toe nail. On August 16, 2023, the wound consultant noted that the resident's toe nails were long and mycotic and that she requested a Band-Aid to an abrasion on her toe until she was seen by podiatry. On October 3, 2023, a nurse noted that the resident was added to the podiatry list at the resident's request. In an interview on October 21, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. Resident 2 stated that she had not seen a podiatrist since admission and had requested to see one. Observation on October 21, 2023, at 1:50 p.m. with LPN 1 revealed that the resident's toenails were long and in need of nail care. In an interview on October 21, 2023, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident 2 had not been seen by a podiatrist since admission to the facility. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
Sept 2023 3 deficiencies
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 clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 20 sampled residents. (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 20 sampled residents. (Resident 12) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 12 had diagnoses that included dementia, depression, and anxiety. On August 7, 2023, a physician ordered that staff administer a medication patch (rivastigmine) 4.6 milligrams (mg) once a day for dementia. Observation on September 27, 2023, at 8:58 a.m., revealed licensed practical nurse (LPN) 1 and LPN 2 identified and retrieved a 9.5 mg rivastigmine patch from the medication cart. LPN 1 proceeded to administer the patch, which was the incorrect dose, to Resident 12. In an interview on September 27, 2023, at 10:29 a.m., LPN 2 confirmed that the incorrect rivastigmine patch was administered to Resident 12. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess and provide nutritional interventions in a timely manner for one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess and provide nutritional interventions in a timely manner for one of five sampled residents at risk for weight loss. (Resident 44) Findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled, Weight Assessment and Interventions, dated June 29, 2023, revealed that staff was to weigh residents monthly. Staff was to verify any weight changes of five pounds or more by re-weighing the resident within 24 hours. If the weight change was confirmed, staff was to notify the dietitian who was to respond within 72 hours. Staff was also to notify the attending physician and resident representative of unplanned significant weight changes. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 44 had diagnoses that included stroke, malnutrition, and dysphagia. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident was at risk for nutrition problems and that staff was to weigh the resident per policy. On June 3, 2023, the resident weighed 144.8 pounds (lbs.). On July 4, 2023, the resident weighed 135.6 lbs., a 6.06 percent weight loss. There was no documented evidence that staff verified the resident's weight loss per facility policy or notified the dietitian, physician, and resident's representative of the weight loss. On August 15, 2023, the resident weighed 134.1 lbs., an additional loss of 1.5 lbs. There was no evidence that the facility addressed the resident's weight loss identified on July 4, 2023, until August 18, 2023, or implemented nutrition interventions until August 23, 2023. In an interview on September 28, 2023, at 10:03 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documented evidence that the re-weights were obtained to verify the weight loss and that the dietitian, physician and resident's representative were notified of the significant weight loss per facility policy. CFR 483.25 (g)(1) Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status Previously cited 10/6/2021, 9/30/2022 28 Pa. Code 211.10(a) 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment on one of two nursing units. (Second floor) Findings include: Observation of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment on one of two nursing units. (Second floor) Findings include: Observation of the pantry on the second floor nursing unit on September 27, 2023, at 11:06 a.m., revealed a microwave with a piece of tape covering the lower part of the control panel and the top part of the button that opened the door. Inside the microwave, there were areas of a dark brown substance and exposed rust. Observation of the east shower room on the second floor nursing unit on September 27, 2023, at 11:40 a.m., revealed the toilet assist bars above the toilet were loose on both sides. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Wyomissing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WYOMISSING HEALTH AND 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 Wyomissing Center Staffed?

CMS rates WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Wyomissing Center?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 9 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Wyomissing Center?

WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 103 certified beds and approximately 95 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in READING, Pennsylvania.

How Does Wyomissing Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wyomissing 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 Wyomissing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WYOMISSING HEALTH AND 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 Wyomissing Center Stick Around?

WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 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 Wyomissing Center Ever Fined?

WYOMISSING HEALTH AND 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 Wyomissing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

WYOMISSING HEALTH AND 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.

WYOMISSING HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1000 EAST WYOMISSING BLVD, READING, PA 19611 | (610) 376-3991

B+
Trust Grade (80/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
11
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025