HOLY FAMILY MANOR

1200 SPRING STREET, BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 (610) 865-5595
Non profit - Church related 208 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#54 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Holy Family Manor in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has received a Trust Grade of A, indicating excellent quality and a strong recommendation for families considering this nursing home. It ranks #54 out of 653 facilities statewide and #2 out of 12 in Northampton County, placing it in the top half of all Pennsylvania nursing homes. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from three in 2024 to zero in 2025. Staffing is rated as good, with a turnover rate of 37%, lower than the state average, and the home has more RN coverage than 80% of facilities in Pennsylvania, which helps ensure resident care is closely monitored. However, there have been specific concerns, such as instances where residents did not receive timely assistance or proper care as outlined in their care plans, which raises questions about the consistency of care despite the overall positive rating.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#54/653
Top 8%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (37%)

    11 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 37%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

Jun 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely assistance with care in a manner that maintained dignity for two of 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely assistance with care in a manner that maintained dignity for two of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 30, 86) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 30 had mild cognitive impairment and required assistance from staff to get out of bed. According to the care plan, she also had depressed mood and would call out at times. The care plan indicated that staff was to respond to her requests for care and allow the resident to make decisions about her activities. On June 4, 2024, at 10:09 a.m., the resident was observed in bed and her call light was on. The resident stated, I want to get out of bed. Between 10:09 and 10:38 a.m., the call light remained on, and several staff members walked by the room without assisting the resident. At 10:38 a.m., a staff member turned off the call light and left the room without assisting the resident. The resident began to call out, Help me! until staff assisted her at 11:07 a.m. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 86 was incontinent of urine, was able to communicate her needs, and required assistance to use the toilet. According to the care plan, staff was to assist the resident to the toilet frequently and upon request. On June 5, 2024, at 10:49 a.m., the resident turned on her call light. At that time she stated, I need to use the bathroom. At 10:52 a.m., a nurse entered the room and turned off her call light without assisting her to the bathroom. Staff did not assist the resident until 11:30 a.m. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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 and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 45) Findings include: Clinical r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 45) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 45 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness, dementia, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated May 15, 2024, revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan revealed the resident has a potential for impaired skin integrity and staff was to apply Dermasaver gloves (gloves for skin protection) to both arms while the resident was in the wheelchair. On June 18, 2023, a physician ordered that staff to apply a Tubigrip (an elastic bandage for support) to the right hand under the Dermasaver glove. On June 4, 2024, at 1:12 p.m. and 2:07 p.m., and again on June 5, 2024, at 10:47 a.m. and 12:25 p.m., Resident 45 was observed in a wheelchair without the Dermasaver gloves or Tubigrip in place. There was no documented evidence that the resident had refused application of the Dermasaver gloves or Tubigrip. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Feb 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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) Act, clinical record review and staff interviw, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of quality regard...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) Act, clinical record review and staff interviw, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of quality regarding the administration of physician prescribed medications was followed for one of four residents that received medication. (Resident 1) Findings include: Pa. Code Title 49 Professional and Vocational Standards Department of State Chapter 21, State Board of Nursing 21.145 Function of the Licensed Practical Nurse states that the LPN is prepared to functions as a member of the health care team based on preparation, knowledge, skills and understanding of past experiences in nursing situations and the LPN administers medications and carries out the therapeutic treatments ordered for the patient. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), anxiety and hypotension. Clinical record review revealed that on January 31, 2024, at 9:40 p.m. LPN 1 failed to identify Resident 1 by name band identification, photo identification or verbal confirmation prior to the administration of medications. As a result, Resident 1 received another resident's medications in error including a medication to treat hypertension (Lisinopril),a medication for schizophrenia (Quetiapine), a medication for tremors (Ropinirole) and a medication for depression (Mirtazapine). In an interview on February 6, 2024, at 11:10 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that LPN 1 failed to follow the accepted standard of identifying a resident prior to the administration of medication. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Jul 2023 3 deficiencies
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, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 20) Findings include Clinical record review revealed that Resident 20 had diagnoses that included spina bifida, paraplegia, muscle weakness, and debility. A physician's order dated November 1, 2019, directed staff to apply a knee abduction cushion and check for alignment throughout the day. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident was at risk for skin breakdown. The intervention was for staff to apply a knee abduction cushion per the orders. Multiple observations on July 19, 2023, between 11:10 a.m., and 1:28 p.m., revealed Resident 20 sitting in a wheelchair, the knee abduction cushion was not in place. In an interview on July 20, 2023, at 8:20 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that staff did not apply the knee abduction cushion and that it should have been applied per the care plan and physician's order. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper care was provided for one of two sampled residents who used a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper care was provided for one of two sampled residents who used a urinary catheter (a flexible tube that drains urine from the bladder). (Resident 20) Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled, Urinary Catheters, last reviewed January 2023, revealed that a catheter drainage bag was never to be elevated to or above bladder level. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 20 had diagnoses that included paraplegia, spina bifida, dementia, and dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident had an indwelling catheter. The intervention was for staff to position the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder. Multiple observations on July 18, 2023, between 11:30 a.m. and 1:13 a.m., revealed Resident 20 was seated in a wheelchair. The tubing of the catheter was arranged such that it extended down the resident's pants leg and out the bottom to the drainage bag. The catheter bag was positioned inside the seat of the wheelchair, between the arm rest and the resident's hip. Neither the tubing nor the drainage bag were maintained below the level of the resident's bladder. Urine was observed in the tubing. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(d) Resident care policies. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's representative in four of fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's representative in four of five residents sampled who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 19, 56, 61, 112) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 19 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 56 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 61 was transferred to the hospital on April 24 and June 1, 2023, after changes in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the resident's transfers to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 112 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident's responsible party or legal representative was provided written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(c.3)(2) Resident rights.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • 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.
  • • 37% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Holy Family Manor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HOLY FAMILY MANOR an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Holy Family Manor Staffed?

CMS rates HOLY FAMILY MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Holy Family Manor?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at HOLY FAMILY MANOR during 2023 to 2024. These included: 5 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Holy Family Manor?

HOLY FAMILY MANOR 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 208 certified beds and approximately 109 residents (about 52% occupancy), it is a large facility located in BETHLEHEM, Pennsylvania.

How Does Holy Family Manor Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, HOLY FAMILY MANOR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Holy Family Manor?

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 Holy Family Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HOLY FAMILY MANOR 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 5-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 Holy Family Manor Stick Around?

HOLY FAMILY MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Holy Family Manor Ever Fined?

HOLY FAMILY MANOR 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 Holy Family Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

HOLY FAMILY MANOR 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.