SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
South Hills Post Acute has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not among the top facilities. It ranks #354 out of 653 in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and #17 out of 52 in Allegheny County, meaning only 16 local options are better. The facility is currently worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate is high at 63%, significantly above the state average of 46%. There have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, and the facility has more RN coverage than 88% of state facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. However, recent inspections revealed several concerns. For instance, kitchen staff failed to wear proper beard restraints, risking food contamination. Additionally, six residents reported that their living environment was not safe or comfortable, which goes against the facility's commitment to providing a homelike atmosphere. Lastly, there was a failure to inform residents about the bed-hold policy during hospital transfers, potentially affecting their rights and care continuity. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should consider these significant weaknesses when evaluating care options.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #354/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 59 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
17pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
15 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
May 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to m...
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
Based on review of facility policy, facility records, observation and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility fai...
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 observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly restrain hair to prevent the potential for cross contamination in the Main Kitchen.
Findings include:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post complete contact information for Adult Protective Services and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure postings of the location Department of Health most recent survey results were readily accessible to residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0579
(Tag F0579)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to display written information on applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits and receiving refunds for previous p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
2 deficiencies
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, resident interviews, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility ...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, resident interviews, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical records and incident reports and staff interviews, it was determined that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
1 deficiency
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, facility provided documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain ongoing commu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policies, and resident/family concern log and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify residents of the procedures for filing a g...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is South Hills Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE 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 South Hills Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 63%, which is 17 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at South Hills Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates South Hills Post Acute?
SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 160 certified beds and approximately 130 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BETHEL PARK, Pennsylvania.
How Does South Hills Post Acute Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (63%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting South Hills Post Acute?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is South Hills Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE 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 South Hills Post Acute Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE is high. At 63%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was South Hills Post Acute Ever Fined?
SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE 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 South Hills Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
SOUTH HILLS POST ACUTE 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.