PennsylvaniaWashington

Southmont of Presbyterian Seniorcare

835 South Main Street, Washington, PA 15301 · Washington County · 147 certified beds · avg 143 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1984

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE NETWORK (5 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$8,824
Fines, last 3 years
3.87
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 25, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 12, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 12, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 31, 2024 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: May 20, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (15)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 25, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 21, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
May 21, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
May 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Nov 12, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Nov 12, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Apr 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Apr 25, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency.
Jan 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 31, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
May 31, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
May 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
May 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (3 → 3).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202451G ▲
202562G ▲
202641G ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $8,824.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 31, 2024Fine$8,824

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityPennsylvania avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.873.943.95top 42% in Pennsylvania; top 45% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.870.800.69top 29% in Pennsylvania; top 23% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.513.583.50top 42% in Pennsylvania; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.420.560.48bottom 48% in Pennsylvania; top 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)34.444.545.8top 23% in Pennsylvania; top 23% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.339.942.9top 37% in Pennsylvania; top 33% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.90, RN 0.87, weekend 3.54. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Dorman, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/15/2020
Frank, RobertIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE09/27/2024
Gray, RobertaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/19/2017
Gray, RobertaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2016
Kolesar, SharonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/06/2024
Kolesar, SharonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/06/2024
Lin, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/15/2020
Malisky, JIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2010
Massella, JoanIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021
McAfee, Lori AnnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/26/2017
McAfee, Lori AnnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/26/2017
Pieffer, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/08/1989
Pieffer, JamesIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/08/1989
Pieffer, JamesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/08/1989
Presbyterian SeniorcareOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/1982
Presbyterian SeniorcareOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/1982
Stechschulte, DonaldIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Stechschulte, DonaldIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Ulrich, TanyaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/03/2016

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Transitions Healthcare Washington Pa1.9 miWashington, PA★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Kadima Rehabilitation & Nursing at Washington3.1 miWashington, PA★★☆☆☆1/5
Premier Washington Rehabilitation and Nursing Ctr3.7 miWashington, PA★★☆☆☆2/5
Greenery Center for Rehab and Nursing6.1 miCanonsburg, PA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Townview Health and Rehabilitation Center6.9 miCanonsburg, PA★★★☆☆3/5
Wecare at South Hills Rehabilitation and Nrsg Ctr8.1 miCanonsburg, PA—/5abuseSFF
Kadima Rehabilitation & Nursing at North Strabane8.4 miCanonsburg, PA★★★☆☆3/5
McMurray Hills Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente9.6 miMcMurray, PA★★★☆☆3/5
Peters Township Post Acute9.7 miMcMurray, PA★★★★☆3/5
Bridgeville Rehabilitation & Care Center12.5 miBridgeville, PA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Friendship Village of South Hi12.7 miPittsburgh, PA★★★☆☆3/5
Meadowcrest Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center13.7 miBethel Park, PA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Washington →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 395671.