Citations in Pennsylvania
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Pennsylvania.
Statistics for Pennsylvania (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Pennsylvania
Failure to provide and document respiratory care: A resident with a trach had no documented evidence of respiratory rate, depth, and quality being monitored each shift and as needed, despite oxygen orders and trach care needs. Other residents with CPAP, nebulizer, and oxygen therapy had respiratory equipment left out of required storage, missing CPAP settings and care details in orders and care plans, and MAR entries signed by nursing staff even when respiratory staff reportedly completed the equipment changes.
Failure to Coordinate Hospice Services in Care Plans: The facility failed to coordinate hospice services with facility services for three residents receiving hospice care. One resident’s care plan did not include hospice needs despite hospice enrollment, and two residents’ comprehensive care plans lacked hospice agency contact information and access to the hospice 24-hour on-call system. The RNAC confirmed the omissions during interview; the residents had diagnoses including HTN, heart failure, kidney disease, diabetes, hypokalemia, and vitamin D deficiency.
Cross contamination occurred during a dressing change when an LPN placed a resident’s foot directly on the wheelchair seat without a barrier and did not clean the bedside table after the procedure. The facility also lacked infection surveillance documentation for several months, and its Legionella water management plan was incomplete, with no mapping of high-risk areas, no temperature logs, and no documented preventive measures for unused areas.
Failure to implement an antibiotic stewardship program. The facility’s infection control policy stated that antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use would be part of the infection control program, but the Infection Control Program lacked documented evidence of antibiotic monitoring or review of appropriate antibiotic use for 3 months. The RN IP stated she had taken over the program, was also supervising the building, and had not been able to complete the program work or review the binders; administration confirmed the lapse.
Failure to Use Resident’s Preferred Name: A resident with HTN, anxiety, and depression had a preferred name documented in the care plan and MDS, but the name tag at the room entrance did not reflect that preference. When staff greeted the resident using the name on the door, the resident stated she did not like being called that and gave her preferred name. Staff interviews confirmed the preferred name was not listed at the door, and the ADON and DON acknowledged the omission.
A resident's confidential medical information was left visible on the East med cart computer screen at the nurses station when the cart was unattended. An RN confirmed the observation and acknowledged that resident personal and clinical information was exposed to anyone passing by.
Failure to Provide and Document Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate respiratory care was provided and documented for residents with tracheostomy, oxygen, CPAP, and nebulizer needs. Facility policy required respiratory treatments and equipment care to be based on physician orders, care plans, and diagnoses, and required documentation of services provided, including date, time, and the name and title of the person providing care. The respiratory therapy job description stated respiratory staff assumed primary responsibility for respiratory care modalities, conducted therapeutic procedures, maintained resident records, and documented patient care services. Resident R3 had diagnoses including traumatic brain injury and respiratory failure and had a physician order for oxygen at 10 liters per minute continuously, titrated to maintain oxygen saturation above 90%. The resident’s MDS indicated tracheostomy care was required. During observation, R3 was receiving oxygen via face mask to the trach and pulse and oxygen saturation were being monitored. However, review of the clinical record failed to show evidence that the resident’s respiratory rate, depth, and quality were monitored and documented each shift and as needed. Staff interviews confirmed that nurses were responsible for reviewing care plans, monitoring respiratory status, and documenting changes, and that the facility failed to document and monitor R3’s respiratory rate, depth, and quality each shift and as needed. Resident R67 had obstructive sleep apnea, heart failure, and diabetes, with an order for CPAP at hour of sleep at home settings. The order did not include the setting or any care for the CPAP machine, and the care plan also did not include the CPAP settings or care needed for the machine. During observation, the resident’s CPAP mask was sitting on top of the bedside stand and was not stored in a bag as required. Resident R69 had emphysema and was ordered albuterol nebulizer treatments four times a day, but during observation the handheld nebulizer was sitting on top of the machine and not stored in a bag as required. Resident R11 and Resident R32 both had oxygen therapy orders requiring nasal cannula changes every two weeks, but the MAR showed changes documented by nursing staff while interviews confirmed respiratory staff actually performed the changes and that staff signed off even when they had not personally completed the task. The interviews also reflected confusion about who was responsible for the equipment changes and documentation.
Failure to Coordinate Hospice Services in Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure coordination of hospice services with facility services to meet the end-of-life care needs of three residents. Review of the facility’s hospice policy showed that coordinated care plans for residents receiving hospice services were to include the most recent hospice plan of care and the care and services provided by the facility. For Resident R9, the record showed admission to hospice with a diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease, and the MDS indicated hospice care was received while a resident; however, the current care plan did not include a hospice care plan. During interview, the RNAC confirmed the facility failed to implement a care plan for Resident R9’s hospice needs. For Resident R24 and Resident R78, the records showed physician orders to admit each resident to hospice services. Their current comprehensive care plans did not include coordination details for hospice services, including contact information for the hospice agency or how to access the hospice’s 24-hour on-call system. During interview, the RNAC confirmed the facility failed to include this information in the plan of care and failed to ensure coordination of hospice services with facility services for these residents. Resident R24’s diagnoses included high blood pressure, kidney disease, and hypokalemia, and Resident R78’s diagnoses included high blood pressure, kidney disease, and vitamin D deficiency.
Cross Contamination During Dressing Change and Infection Control Program Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
Cross contamination occurred during a dressing change for Resident R24. The resident was admitted to the facility and had diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. A physician order dated 4/27/26 directed the right lateral foot to be cleansed with normal saline, patted dry, treated with Santyl ointment, and covered with a dry dressing daily and as needed. During observation of the dressing change on 5/5/26, the LPN prepared a clean area on the resident’s over-bed table with a barrier and supplies, cleansed the foot, then placed the resident’s right foot directly on the wheelchair seat without placing a barrier before applying the ointment and dressing. After the dressing was completed, the LPN gathered and discarded supplies, removed the barrier from the over-bed table, and exited the room. During interview, the LPN confirmed that a clean barrier had not been placed on the wheelchair seat before the resident’s foot was placed there and confirmed that the bedside table was not cleaned after the supplies and barrier were removed. The LPN also confirmed the failure to prevent cross contamination during the dressing change. The facility also failed to maintain infection control surveillance for three months, as the infection control documentation did not show tracking of resident infections for February 2026, March 2026, and April 2026. When asked about the surveillance system, the RN who had taken over the program stated she had not done anything since taking over on 4/4/26 and had not looked at the infection control binders. The NHA confirmed the facility failed to implement an infection control program that included a system of surveillance to identify possible communicable diseases or infections for those months. In addition, the facility’s Legionella water management plan lacked mapping of high-opportunity areas, water temperature logs, and evidence of preventive measures for areas not in use, and staff could not provide logs or explain required temperatures during interviews.
Failure to Implement Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for 3 of 10 months, specifically February 2026, March 2026, and April 2026. The facility’s Infection Control Plan, Program and Committee policy, last reviewed on 1/6/26, stated that an antibiotic stewardship program would be part of the overall infection control program and that antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use would be implemented. However, review of the Infection Control Program for February 2026, March 2026, and April 2026 found no documented evidence that antibiotic monitoring or review of appropriate antibiotic use was completed. During a telephonic interview on 5/6/26, the RN infection preventionist stated she took over the Infection Control program on 4/4/26, was also supervising the building, had only been looking at records for reportable issues, had not been able to do the program since starting, and had not seen the binders. Nursing home administration confirmed during an interview on 5/6/26 that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for those 3 months.
Failure to Use Resident’s Preferred Name
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat a resident with respect by not addressing the resident by the preferred name. Review of the resident’s care plan showed the name the resident preferred to be called, and the MDS also documented that preferred name. The resident had diagnoses of high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression. During an observation and interview, the resident’s name tag at the entrance of the room did not show the preferred name, and when the resident was greeted using the name listed on the door, the resident stated she did not like being called that and stated the preferred name. Staff interviews confirmed that residents are asked about name preferences on admission and that preferred nicknames are included in the care plan, but the Activities Director was unsure who was responsible for ensuring the preferred name was listed at the door. A nurse aide stated nurses are usually responsible for placing the name tag at the entrance of the door, though aides sometimes do it. Subsequent observations confirmed the preferred name was still not listed on the door, and the ADON and DON both confirmed that the resident’s preferred name choice was not listed at the entrance of the door.
Failure to Protect Confidential Resident Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of a resident's medical information on the East Medication Cart. Facility policy titled Quality of Life - Dignity, dated 1/6/26, stated that staff shall maintain an environment in which confidential clinical information is protected. During an observation on 5/4/26 at 11:38 a.m., the East Medication Cart at the nurses station was left unattended with the computer screen open, and identifiable resident personal and confidential information was visible to anyone passing by. During an interview at the same time, RN Employee E9 confirmed the observation and acknowledged that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' medical information.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Pennsylvania — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Pennsylvania
Data through Apr 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period May 2025 – Apr 2026 against the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
