Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around May 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Scranton Health Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies in Kitchen: Surveyors observed an ice machine condensation drainpipe draining without an air gap and noted a black substance on the end of the pipe. In addition, pans were in the 3-compartment sink and the sanitizer test strips were expired, with no replacement strips available to verify sanitizer concentration. The Dietary Manager confirmed the expired strips and stated kitchen equipment is sanitized, air dried, and stored for future use.
MDS Assessments Not Completed Accurately or Timely: The facility failed to complete an OBRA discharge assessment within the required timeframe for one resident with diabetes, anxiety, and severe cognitive impairment, and entered an incorrect discharge date on the assessment. The facility also failed to accurately code another resident’s annual MDS for PASRR Level II status despite documentation showing major depressive disorder, anxiety, and a state determination requiring specialized mental health services; an LPN confirmed the coding error.
Failure to Follow Bowel Protocol and Notify Provider: A resident with a physician-ordered bowel management protocol had multiple days with no documented BM, yet nursing staff did not document implementation of the ordered MiraLAX/enema sequence on the MAR or bowel record. Although an Enemeez Micro Enema was given, there was no documented BM afterward and no evidence the provider was notified within the required timeframe; the DON could not provide evidence that the ordered protocol or notification occurred.
A resident with PVD and skin injury risk had a physician order for an alternating pressure mattress and a care plan for pressure-relieving devices, but staff left the mattress set at the maximum 450-lb setting despite a documented weight of 202.7 lbs. An RN confirmed the setting should match the resident’s weight, and a later wound care note documented a new open area on the left buttock with serosanguineous drainage and identified the resident as high risk for pressure injury development.
A resident with impaired mobility and a physician's order for Prevalon boots repeatedly refused to wear the boots, as documented in clinical records and confirmed by observation and interview. Despite these documented refusals and the resident's clear preference, the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's choice, contrary to facility policy requiring person-centered care planning.
A resident with dementia and arthritis was assessed in the MDS as having no range of motion impairment and using a manual wheelchair, but observations and staff interviews revealed limited right wrist movement and use of a Broda chair. Therapy staff and clinical records confirmed these limitations, yet the MDS did not accurately reflect the resident's condition or equipment use.
A resident with a history of fracture and muscle weakness received PRN Oxycodone multiple times without staff attempting or documenting non-pharmacological pain interventions beforehand, contrary to facility policy and regulatory requirements. Record reviews and staff interviews confirmed the lack of individualized pain management and documentation.
The facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of narcotic medications for two residents. An LPN signed out doses of Oxycodone and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen without proper documentation or physician orders. The facility did not timely report or investigate these discrepancies, violating policies on abuse and misappropriation.
The facility failed to develop and implement individualized toileting programs for three residents, leading to deficiencies in bowel and bladder management. One resident, with severe cognitive impairment, was not placed on a toileting management program, resulting in moisture-associated skin damage. Another resident with Parkinson's disease did not have a completed 72-hour toileting diary, preventing the development of a continence management program. A third resident with chronic kidney disease and diabetes lacked a specific toileting plan, and no additional assessments were conducted. The facility's failure to assess bowel and bladder function was confirmed by the NHA.
A facility failed to reassess a resident's pain management plan despite repeated daily use of opioid medications. The resident, admitted with cerebral infarction and shoulder pain, frequently received Oxycodone without further pain evaluations or non-pharmacological interventions. The DON confirmed the lack of assessment, leading to ineffective individualized pain management.
The facility failed to maintain accurate clinical records for two residents, leading to deficiencies in care documentation. One resident's records lacked evidence of preventative measures for skin damage, and another resident's toileting diary was incomplete, hindering continence management. The Director of Nursing confirmed discrepancies in the electronic health record system and care plans.
A resident with dementia, who was cognitively intact, expressed a desire to be discharged home. However, the facility failed to document an individualized discharge plan in her care plan, as confirmed by the DON. The social service notes only mentioned her wish to be discharged, with no further updates.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health issues developed a Stage 3 pressure ulcer due to the facility's failure to implement consistent preventative measures. The facility lacked documentation of interventions like turning and repositioning, and the resident's care plan did not include individualized strategies to prevent skin impairments. Preventative measures were not transferred to a new EHR system, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility did not develop individualized care plans for two residents with dementia, failing to address their behavioral symptoms with person-centered, non-pharmacological approaches. The care plans lacked documentation of activities tailored to the residents' routines and preferences.
The facility failed to reconcile controlled drug records for two residents. An LPN signed out doses of Oxycodone for a resident when not on duty, and these were not recorded on the MAR. Another resident received Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen after it was discontinued, with doses documented on the narcotic record but not on the MAR. The DON and Nursing Home Administrator confirmed these discrepancies.
A resident was administered Cefdinir for a UTI without documented clinical necessity, as the antibiotic was not effective against the bacteria present. Despite this, the resident received four doses before the medication was changed to Levaquin. The facility failed to ensure proper documentation and administration of antibiotics.
The facility failed to provide written notices of hospital transfers to two residents and their representatives, as well as to the Ombudsman. One resident with osteoarthritis and muscle weakness, and another with diabetes, were transferred without documented evidence of notification. The DON confirmed the lack of documentation for these transfers.
The facility failed to provide written notice of its bed-hold policy to two residents and their representatives upon hospital transfer. There was no documentation in the clinical records indicating that the residents or their responsible parties were informed of the facility's bed-hold and reserve bed payment policy. The NHA and DON could not provide evidence of notification, resulting in a deficiency under resident rights regulations.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent contamination and microbial growth in the food and nutrition services department. During an initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Manager, surveyors observed the ice machine condensation drainpipe draining without an air gap, and a black substance was present on the end of the drainpipe. The report stated that the lack of an air gap could allow contaminated water to backflow into the ice machine where ice intended for resident consumption is produced, and that residue on equipment associated with food production can harbor microorganisms that may contaminate food or ice. Surveyors also observed pans in the kitchen's three-compartment sink and found that the sanitizer test strips were dated October 3, 2023 and had expired in April 2025. The Dietary Manager confirmed the test strips were expired and that no replacement strips were available in the facility to verify sanitizer concentration in the three-compartment sink. The Dietary Manager further stated that kitchen equipment is sanitized, allowed to air dry, and then stored for future food preparation and service. The deficiency was cited under 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (e) (2.1) Management.
MDS Assessments Not Completed Accurately or Within Required Timeframes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately and within required federal timeframes for two residents. The Long Term Care Facility RAI User’s Manual requires assessments to accurately reflect the resident’s status and to be completed with appropriate participation from health professionals. The record review and staff interviews showed that the facility did not complete a required OBRA Discharge Assessment within the required timeframe for one resident and did not accurately code another resident’s Level II PASRR status on the annual MDS. Resident 23 was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes and anxiety disorder. A BIMS score dated June 15, 2026 showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 00. The resident was discharged to the hospital on May 9, 2026 with an anticipated return, which required an OBRA Discharge Assessment-Return Anticipated to be completed within 14 days of the discharge date. The assessment contained an incorrect discharge date of April 9, 2026 instead of May 9, 2026, and it remained incomplete beyond the required timeframe. During interview, an LPN acknowledged the discharge date was incorrect and confirmed the assessment was not completed within the federally required timeframe. Resident 28 was admitted with diagnoses including major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. A quarterly MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13. The annual MDS, Section A1500 PASRR, indicated the resident was not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness, intellectual disability, or a related condition. However, the clinical record contained a determination letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, OMHSAS, stating the resident met criteria for review by the state mental health authority, was appropriate for nursing facility placement, and required specialized mental health services. An LPN confirmed the resident had a serious mental health diagnosis and a Level II PASRR determination, and acknowledged the annual MDS was not coded accurately.
Failure to Follow Bowel Management Orders and Notify Provider
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services consistently with accepted professional standards of nursing practice by not implementing a physician-ordered bowel management protocol and not notifying the practitioner as directed for one resident. The resident had physician orders for a bowel protocol to begin after 48 hours without a bowel movement, including MiraLAX 17 grams, a repeat dose the following day if no bowel movement occurred, and then an Enemeez Micro Enema if still no bowel movement occurred, with provider notification required if the enema did not produce a bowel movement within one hour. Review of the resident’s bowel tracking record for January 2026 showed no documented bowel movement during all three shifts on multiple days, including January 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23. The January 2026 MAR showed no documented evidence that nursing staff implemented the ordered bowel protocol during these periods. Although an Enemeez Micro Enema 5 ml was administered on January 17, 2026 at 6:12 AM, the bowel tracking record contained no documented evidence of a bowel movement afterward, and there was no documented evidence that the physician was notified within one hour as ordered. The DON reviewed the findings during interview and was unable to provide evidence that the protocol was implemented or that the provider was notified as ordered.
Alternating Air Mattress Left at Incorrect Weight Setting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently implement physician-ordered and care-planned pressure-relieving interventions for a resident admitted with peripheral vascular disease and identified as at risk for skin injury. The resident’s care plan included pressure-relieving devices for the wheelchair and mattress, and a physician order directed staff to provide an alternating pressure mattress and check the mattress settings every shift. The manufacturer’s instructions required the mattress pressure to be adjusted using the resident’s corresponding weight setting so the surface would function as intended to redistribute pressure. A nursing progress note documented the resident’s weight as 202.7 pounds, but observations on two separate dates showed the alternating air mattress still set at the maximum 450-pound setting while the resident was lying in bed. An RN confirmed the mattress should be adjusted to correspond with the resident’s weight. A wound care note later documented bilateral dermatoses and a new open area on the left buttock measuring 1.0 cm by 1.0 cm by 0.2 cm, with serosanguineous drainage. The wound care provider identified the resident as high risk for pressure injury development and recommended continuing turning and repositioning, use of an alternating low air loss mattress for pressure redistribution, and ensuring the mattress settings were appropriate for the resident’s weight. The clinical record contained no physician order, nursing assessment, wound care documentation, or other clinical justification supporting continued use of the maximum setting.
Failure to Incorporate Resident Preferences into Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor and incorporate a resident's expressed preferences and choices into the care planning process. A resident with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and ascites, who was cognitively intact, was admitted to the facility and had a physician's order for Prevalon boots to be worn while in or out of bed, with removal allowed for hygiene and skin checks. The resident's care plan included goals to prevent deterioration in activities of daily living (ADL) functional status, and nursing documentation indicated the boots were initiated for preventive care. However, clinical records, nursing progress notes, and the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented multiple instances where the resident refused to wear the boots and was re-educated on their purpose. Despite repeated refusals and clear documentation of the resident's choice not to wear the Prevalon boots, the resident's expressed preference was not incorporated into the comprehensive care plan. Observations confirmed the resident was not wearing the boots during multiple checks, and the resident verbally confirmed their preference not to use them. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the resident's choice was not addressed in the care plan, which is inconsistent with the facility's policy to develop person-centered care plans focused on resident choices and abilities.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment and Documentation for Resident Functional Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident, as required by federal regulations. The resident, who had diagnoses including dementia and rheumatoid arthritis, was documented in the quarterly MDS as having no impairment in range of motion for upper and lower extremities. However, direct observations and staff interviews revealed that the resident's lower extremities were sometimes flexed while seated, and the right hand was often in a closed position, requiring staff assistance to open. Further assessments by therapy staff confirmed limited range of motion in the resident's right wrist due to osteoarthritis, which was also supported by a clinical record and X-ray. Despite these findings, the MDS did not accurately reflect the resident's actual physical limitations. Additionally, the MDS indicated that the resident utilized a manual wheelchair and was dependent on chair mobility. Observations and staff interviews, however, showed that the resident primarily used a Broda chair, which is not classified as a manual wheelchair according to the RAI manual. Documentation in the clinical record and therapy notes confirmed the use of the Broda chair. The facility was unable to provide documentation to support the MDS coding, and the Regional Reimbursement Specialist could not confirm the accuracy of the MDS. These discrepancies demonstrate that the facility did not ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected the resident's status, as required.
Failure to Implement Non-Pharmacological Pain Management Prior to PRN Narcotic Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement individualized pain management programs consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident with a history of a left fibula fracture and muscle weakness. Despite facility policy requiring non-pharmacological interventions to be attempted prior to administering as-needed (PRN) narcotic pain medication, staff repeatedly administered Oxycodone without first attempting or documenting any non-pharmacological pain relief methods. This was evidenced by a review of the resident's Medication Administration Records (MAR) over several months, which showed multiple instances where Oxycodone was given without prior non-pharmacological interventions. Interviews and record reviews confirmed that the facility could not provide documentation supporting the use of non-pharmacological interventions before administering PRN pain medication, as required by their policy. The deficiency was identified for one resident out of fourteen reviewed, and the failure was in direct violation of both facility policy and state regulations regarding pain management and resident care.
Failure to Prevent Misappropriation of Narcotic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement measures to deter the misappropriation of resident property, specifically narcotic medications, for two residents. Resident 9, who was cognitively intact and had a prescription for Oxycodone for severe pain, had multiple doses of the medication signed out by an LPN who was not on duty at the time. The medication administration record (MAR) did not reflect these doses as given, indicating a discrepancy in the medication management process. Similarly, Resident 90, who was also cognitively intact and on hospice services, had a prescription for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen that was discontinued. Despite this, doses of the medication were signed out and documented as administered after the discontinuation date. The facility's investigation revealed that the same LPN was involved in signing out these medications without proper documentation or physician orders. The facility's administration confirmed that the allegations of misappropriation were not reported or investigated in a timely manner. Witness statements indicated suspicious behavior by the LPN, who was found to have administered medications without proper authorization. The facility's policies on abuse, neglect, and misappropriation were not followed, leading to a failure in protecting residents' rights and ensuring proper medication management.
Failure to Implement Individualized Toileting Programs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement individualized measures for the toileting needs of three residents, leading to deficiencies in bowel and bladder management. Resident 34, who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living, was not placed on a toileting management program despite being identified as a candidate for bowel and bladder retraining. The resident's care plan did not address incontinence management needs, and there was no documented evidence of a 72-hour bowel and bladder tracker being completed. This oversight contributed to the development of moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) on the resident's left buttock. Resident 19, diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and dementia, was also affected by the facility's failure to complete a 72-hour toileting diary consistently. This inconsistency prevented the development of an individualized continence management program, which could have helped restore normal bladder function and prevent incontinence-related complications such as skin breakdown. The resident's clinical record lacked evidence of a completed bowel and bladder tracker upon admission, which was necessary for an accurate assessment of toileting needs. Resident 20, who had chronic kidney disease and diabetes, was identified as frequently incontinent of the bladder. However, the facility did not complete a 72-hour bowel and bladder assessment to determine the feasibility of a retraining program or the need for an individualized incontinence management program. The resident's care plan lacked specific toileting instructions, and there was no evidence of additional assessments or evaluations regarding the resident's bladder status. The facility's failure to thoroughly assess bowel and bladder function for these residents was confirmed by the Nursing Home Administrator.
Failure to Reassess Pain Management Plan for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to reassess a resident's pain management plan despite the repeated daily use of opioid pain medications prescribed on an as-needed basis. The resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of cerebral infarction and right shoulder pain, was cognitively intact and independent in activities of daily living. The resident had a physician's order for Oxycodone 5 mg to be taken every 4 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. However, the facility did not conduct further assessments or evaluations of the resident's pain despite the frequent administration of the medication over several months. The facility's policy required a comprehensive pain evaluation at admission, quarterly reviews, significant changes in condition, or new pain onset. Despite this, there was no documented evidence of additional pain evaluations or the development of non-pharmacological interventions to manage the resident's pain. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of further assessment for the resident's continued daily use of the opioid medication. This oversight resulted in a failure to develop and implement an effective individualized pain management plan consistent with professional standards and the resident's goals and preferences.
Deficiencies in Clinical Record Maintenance and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate and complete clinical records for two residents, as required by professional standards. For Resident 34, the clinical record did not provide evidence of preventative measures to deter or prevent the re-opening of moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) and the development of pressure ulcers. The resident's plan of care did not accurately reflect the care and services provided to maintain skin integrity, and some preventative measures were not carried over to the new electronic health record (EHR) system. Resident 34's clinical record showed discrepancies in wound observation entries, with missing documentation of preventative measures such as turning, repositioning, and the application of barrier cream. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the resident's plan of care did not accurately reflect the actual care provided, and the facility failed to ensure that the clinical record accurately documented the resident's care needs. For Resident 19, the facility did not consistently complete a 72-hour toileting diary to determine a bowel and bladder pattern for developing an individualized continence management program. The clinical record lacked a completed bowel and bladder tracker upon admission, which was necessary for assessing toileting needs and incontinence management. The DON acknowledged that the tracker was not consistently completed, hindering the development of a toileting plan to maintain or improve the resident's continence.
Failure to Develop Individualized Discharge Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement an individualized discharge plan for a resident, identified as Resident 33, who was admitted with a diagnosis of dementia. Despite the resident's cognitive intactness, as indicated by a BIMS score of 14, and her expressed desire to be discharged home, there was no documented evidence of a discharge plan in her comprehensive care plan. The social service notes only mentioned the resident's wish to be discharged home, with no further documentation or updates regarding her discharge planning. This deficiency was confirmed during an interview with the Director of Nursing, who acknowledged the absence of a documented discharge goal and plan for the resident.
Failure to Implement Pressure Ulcer Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently implement measures to prevent pressure sore development for Resident 34, as identified in a survey. Resident 34, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition, was found to have a re-opening of moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) on the left buttock. The facility did not provide documented evidence of preventative measures in place to prevent this re-opening, nor did they investigate the reopened area or develop appropriate interventions to prevent further skin breakdown. Further observations revealed a non-blanchable area on Resident 34's sacrum, which later developed into a Stage 3 pressure ulcer. Although some preventative measures were noted, such as an air overlay mattress and heel bows, the facility lacked documentation showing that turning and repositioning were performed prior to the ulcer's development. The resident's care plan also failed to specify individualized interventions to prevent skin impairments like MASD and pressure ulcers. Interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that some preventative measures were not carried over to the new electronic health record system implemented in mid-May 2024. The facility could not provide evidence that effective interventions were in place before the identification of the MASD and the sacral pressure ulcer. Additionally, the resident's comprehensive care plan was not fully developed with effective measures to prevent skin impairments and pressure ulcers.
Failure to Implement Individualized Dementia Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement individualized person-centered care plans for two residents diagnosed with dementia. Resident 34, admitted with conditions including traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, aphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition, did not have a care plan that addressed their dementia-related behavioral symptoms. The care plan lacked documentation of individualized, non-pharmacological approaches to care, such as activities that align with the resident's routines, interests, and preferences to enhance their well-being. Similarly, Resident 33, who was admitted with a diagnosis of dementia, also did not have a documented individualized care plan. The care plan failed to include interventions based on an assessment of the resident's preferences, social history, and customary routines to manage or decrease dementia-related behavioral symptoms. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the absence of evidence for the development and implementation of such individualized care plans for these residents.
Failure to Reconcile Controlled Drug Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement proper pharmacy procedures for reconciling controlled drugs and records, affecting two residents. For Resident 9, who was admitted with a cerebral infarction and shoulder pain, there were discrepancies in the administration of Oxycodone. The controlled substance record showed doses signed out by an LPN who was not on duty, and these doses were not recorded on the medication administration record (MAR). The Director of Nursing confirmed these inconsistencies during an interview. For Resident 90, who was admitted with hypertension, diabetes, and was on hospice services, there were issues with the administration of Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen. Despite a physician's order to discontinue the medication, doses were signed out and documented as given on the narcotic reconciliation record but not on the MAR. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the narcotic pain medications were not administered according to facility policy and procedure.
Failure to Document Clinical Necessity for Antibiotic Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the presence of documented evidence of clinical necessity for the administration of an antibiotic drug to a resident. The resident, who was initially admitted with diagnoses including osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and a recent infection of Clostridioides difficile, was prescribed Cefdinir for a urinary tract infection (UTI) based on an initial urinalysis. However, a subsequent culture and sensitivity test revealed that Cefdinir was not effective against the bacteria present in the resident's urine. Despite this finding, the resident received four doses of Cefdinir before the medication was discontinued and replaced with Levaquin, which was more appropriate for the infection. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility failed to ensure the resident received multiple doses of the antibiotic without documented evidence of its clinical necessity, as required by the relevant state codes.
Failure to Provide Transfer Notices to Residents and Ombudsman
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notices of facility-initiated hospital transfers to two residents and their representatives, as well as to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Regulatory requirements mandate that before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. However, the facility did not comply with these requirements for two residents. Resident 9, who was initially admitted with osteoarthritis and muscle weakness, was transferred to the hospital on July 20, 2024, but there was no documented evidence of a written notice provided to the resident or their responsible party. Similarly, Resident 23, admitted with diabetes, was transferred to the hospital on September 21, 2024, without documented evidence of a written notice to the resident or their responsible party. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation for both residents' transfers and the absence of a copy of the transfer notice to the Ombudsman.
Failure to Notify Residents of Bed-Hold Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notice of its bed-hold policy to two residents and their representatives upon transfer to the hospital. Resident 9 was transferred to the hospital on July 20, 2024, and Resident 23 on September 21, 2024. In both cases, there was no documentation in the clinical records indicating that the residents or their responsible parties were informed of the facility's bed-hold and reserve bed payment policy at the time of transfer. During an interview on October 31, 2024, the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing were unable to provide evidence that the required notifications were made, resulting in a deficiency under 28 Pa. Code 201.29 (a)(c.3)(2) regarding resident rights.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 480 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 5 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Scranton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mountain View Care And Rehabilitation Center | 1.3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Oak Ridge Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 0 |
| Linwood Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 0 |
| Gino J Merli Veterans Center | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Elan Skilled Nursing And Rehab, A Jewish Senior Li | 2.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Scranton Health Care Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.