GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Good Shepherd Home Raker Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it's a solid choice for families looking for care. It ranks #289 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, but is #13 out of 16 in Lehigh County, meaning only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from five in 2023 to four in 2024. Staffing is a strength here, with a 4/5 star rating and only 19% turnover, which is well below the state average. Although there have been no fines, recent inspections revealed concerns such as food being stored unsafely and a need for a more comfortable environment, indicating room for improvement in cleanliness and facility upkeep.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #289/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 19% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 29 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 94 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Pennsylvania nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Low Staff Turnover (19%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (19%)
29 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to timely complete and transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for two of 20 sampled residents....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen.
Findings include:
Observation ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 services...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a comfortable, homelike environment for residents, s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen.
Findings include:
Observation of the kitchen on October 11, 202...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of trash and refuse properly.
Findings include:
Observation of the trash compactor area on October 11, 2023, at 9:40 a.m., ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 interve...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to attempt non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain prior to or in c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide showers and bathing as ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Findings include:
Observation of the dumpster area on November 8, 2022, at 9:55 a.m., and No...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 19% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 29 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Good Shepherd Home Raker Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Good Shepherd Home Raker Center Staffed?
CMS rates GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 19%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Shepherd Home Raker Center?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 11 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Good Shepherd Home Raker Center?
GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 99 certified beds and approximately 95 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania.
How Does Good Shepherd Home Raker Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (19%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Shepherd Home Raker 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 Good Shepherd Home Raker Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER 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 3-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 Good Shepherd Home Raker Center Stick Around?
Staff at GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 19%, the facility is 27 percentage points below the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 18%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Good Shepherd Home Raker Center Ever Fined?
GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER 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 Good Shepherd Home Raker Center on Any Federal Watch List?
GOOD SHEPHERD HOME RAKER 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.