110 Canfield Street, Cambridge Springs, PA 16403
To contact a resident: (814) 398-4626
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Cambridge Springs Rehabilitation and Nursing Costs & Pricing
Cambridge Springs Rehabilitation and Nursing presents a range of monthly costs that reflect its commitment to quality care in a supportive environment. For residents opting for semi-private accommodations, the fee stands at $5,934, which is notably higher than the county average of $4,766 and the state average of $3,542. In the case of private rooms, Cambridge Springs charges $6,564 - slightly above Erie County's rate of $6,301 but significantly higher than Pennsylvania's average of $4,890. The facility also offers one-bedroom units at the same price as private rooms - $6,564 - which again surpasses both local and state averages; Erie County's one-bedroom cost is considerably lower at $3,959 while Pennsylvania averages at $4,006. These figures illustrate that while Cambridge Springs may be on the higher end compared to its surroundings, it likely reflects an elevated standard of care and amenities available to its residents.
| Floor plans | Cambridge Springs Rehabilitation and Nursing | Erie County | Pennsylvania |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $5,934 | $4,766 | $3,542 |
| Private | $6,564 | $6,301 | $4,890 |
| 1 Bedroom | $6,564 | $3,959 | $4,006 |
Overall Review of Cambridge Springs Rehabilitation and Nursing
Cons
They describe a person inside who has fallen twice on the floor and the place is dirty and not clean.
They say you have to tell them everything you want, implying poor communication and control.
They state the mom is in charge, which leaves them unable to do anything.
They caution not to send anyone there.
Review
This Cambridge Springs Rehabilitation and Nursing is best suited for families who are prepared to take a highly active, hands-on role in daily care decisions. The environment may appeal to those who value a pleasant physical setting and want to leverage family oversight to compensate for gaps in staff responsiveness. It is not appropriate for seniors who require dependable, professional nursing oversight, consistent hygiene practices, and proactive fall prevention. In short, the model here works only when relatives can regularly check in, document needs, and direct staff attention to specific care tasks. Without that level of involvement, risk of safety lapses and mismanagement is unacceptably high. This is not a hands-off option.
Alternatives should be considered for residents with significant fall risk, urinary incontinence requiring careful management, or cognitive or functional needs that demand consistent, dignified care. Families should look elsewhere if the priority is reliable staffing, timely help with mobility, and clean, respectful daily care. Independent verification is essential: tours should include candid conversations with current residents and their families about safety incidents, time-to-assist records, and housekeeping standards. If a choice must be made here, it should be because other options do not meet budget or location constraints and the plan includes rigorous oversight and escalation protocols.
One potential strength pointed to by reviews is an attractive layout that could enhance comfort and ease of movement when staff support is reliably present. Yet that upside is fragile here. The reported experience centers on safety failures and care gaps, which erode any benefit from a pleasant physical design. Without consistent, proactive staff engagement, the physical environment cannot compensate for the core shortcomings: delayed assistance, inadequate cleanliness, and confusion over who is directing the care plan. In such a scenario, a nice lobby or bright hallways are a poor substitute for dependable day-to-day care.
The most troubling findings are safety and dignity concerns: residents reportedly fell twice, with serious risk implied by the mention of injuries and compromised awareness. Cleanliness lapses compound the risk, creating a cycle where basic hygiene is not guaranteed, further eroding trust. Communication appears to hinge on family members telling staff precisely what to do, rather than staff taking initiative, which shifts accountability away from the facility and onto relatives. These patterns threaten not only comfort, but the very safety and emotional well-being of residents who rely on skilled nursing, assistance with mobility, and consistent supervision.
For families exploring this community, insist on seeing real-time incident reports, falls data, and a current staffing schedule that demonstrates a reliable front-line team around the clock. Ask for a tour focused on housekeeping routines, linen changes, and response times for call bells. Scrutinize the formal care plans for incontinence management, skin integrity, and mobility assistance; demand evidence of regular progress notes and a clear escalation protocol when concerns arise. Finally, arrange meetings with a nurse or administrator to confirm how family input is integrated into care plans, and who holds accountability when standards slip.
Overall, this facility presents too many red flags for most families seeking a safe, dignified, and consistently managed nursing environment. Alternatives with stronger safety records and more proactive staff oversight should be pursued first. If remaining under consideration, this community requires an explicit commitment to transparency, rigorous staffing, and a documented plan for immediate corrective action. Unless those conditions are in place and demonstrably sustained, the prudent choice is to look elsewhere.









Understanding Medicaid Coverage for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Guide
How and When Medicaid May Cover Assisted Living Costs
A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living Medicaid Waivers Across the United States