MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM

634 EAST BROAD STREET, BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 (610) 625-4885
Non profit - Corporation 93 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#89 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Moravian Village of Bethlehem has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating high quality and reliability in care. In terms of state rankings, they are positioned #89 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing them in the top half, and #4 out of 12 in Northampton County, meaning only three local options rank higher. The facility is improving, having reduced identified issues from three in 2023 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, with a perfect 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 43%, which is better than the state average, indicating that caregivers are stable and familiar with residents. While the facility has no fines, which is reassuring, there have been some concerns, such as failing to apply a prescribed anti-embolic stocking and not notifying a physician about a resident's change in condition, which could have implications for resident safety. Overall, Moravian Village shows a mix of strong performance with areas that need attention.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#89/653
Top 13%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% 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 68 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
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

Jun 2025 1 deficiency
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, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 36) Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 36) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 36 had diagnoses that included a broken right ankle and diabetes. A physician's order dated April 30, 2025, directed staff to apply an anti-embolic stocking (a special sock to prevent blood clots) to the left leg daily and remove every night due to swelling. Observation on June 16, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. revealed that Resident 36 did not have the anti-embolic stocking applied to her left leg, and multiple observations on June 17, 2025 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:50 p.m., revealed that the stocking was not applied to Resident 36's left leg. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2025 revealed nurses' initials indicated that the anti-embolic stocking was applied in the morning and removed at bedtime on June 16, 2025 and June 17, 2025. In an interview on June 16, 2025 at 12:30 p.m., the resident stated that she has never had a stocking applied to her left leg. In an interview on June 18, 2025 at 11:45 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the order for the anti-embolic stocking to the left leg was an error and that the nurses should not have indicated that it was applied. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services
Jun 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify the resident's physician of a change in condition for one of 14 sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's physician of a change in condition for one of 14 sampled residents. (Resident 34) Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, last reviewed January 30, 2023, revealed that the facility would promptly notify the resident's physician of changes in medical condition or status. Notification was to be made within 24 hours of a change occurring in the resident's medical condition or status. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 34 had diagnoses that included dislocation of left hip, anxiety, and depression. Review of a physical therapy evaluation dated October 20, 2022, revealed that the resident had pain and there was a length discrepancy to the left leg. Review of an x-ray report dated October 21, 2022, revealed that the resident had a dislocation to the left hip. Review of an undated staff statement revealed that the x-ray results were available and at the nursing unit for review on the evening of October 21, 2022. Review of a staff statement dated October 23, 2022, revealed that the x-ray results were reviewed with the certified nurse practitioner (CRNP) at 3:00 p.m., on October 23, 2022, and the resident was transferred to the hospital on the same date. There was no evidence that the CRNP was notified of the results of the x-ray report until October 23, 2022, more than 24 hours after the facility received the results. In an interview on June 14, 2023, at 12:51 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no evidence that the CRNP was notified of the x-ray results until October 23, 2022, and staff should have notified the CRNP within 24 hours. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple 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 during a facility tour on June 13,...

Read full inspector narrative →
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 during a facility tour on June 13, 2023, beginning at 9:55 a.m., revealed debris that included aerosol cans, gloves, plastic bottles, and paper items were scattered on the grass on the side of the compactor. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment to promote safety was provided for one of six residents sampled. (Resident R2) Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment to promote safety was provided for one of six residents sampled. (Resident R2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident R2 had diagnoses that included dementia with behaviors that included care resistance and impulsiveness. An occupational therapy assesment of February 17, 2023, revealed that the resident had difficulty with self feeding and would often spill both food items and beverages. A Kennedy cup (a device with handles, a lid and straw) was ordered to assist with safe meal completion. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of March 1, 2023, revealed that the resident required staff assistance with meals. The care plan also noted the need for the Kennedy cup for beverages at meal time. A note by a nurse on April 21, 2023 at 12:00 p.m., revealed that the resident was at the dining table in preparation for the noon meal. The meal tray was placed in front of him as well as his beverages. The resident impulsively reached for his cup with coffee. The cup and beverage fell onto his lap. The resident sustained a reddened area requiring a cold compress. Staff had not provided the adaptive cup for the meal resulting in the resident spilling the beverage on himself. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) nursing services.
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.
  • • Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM 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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem Staffed?

CMS rates MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Moravian Village Of Bethlehem?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Moravian Village Of Bethlehem?

MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM 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 93 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 53% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BETHLEHEM, Pennsylvania.

How Does Moravian Village Of Bethlehem Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (43%) 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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem?

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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM 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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem Stick Around?

MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem Ever Fined?

MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM 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 Moravian Village Of Bethlehem on Any Federal Watch List?

MORAVIAN VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM 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.