NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Naamans Creek Country Manor has a Trust Grade of C, meaning it is average and falls in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #322 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, but only #16 out of 28 in Delaware County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility's trend is stable, with five issues reported in both 2024 and 2025, suggesting no significant improvement or decline. Staffing is a strength, receiving a 4 out of 5 stars, although a turnover rate of 58% is concerning as it exceeds the state average. However, the facility faced $8,190 in fines, which is average but suggests some compliance issues. In terms of RN coverage, it is at an average level, meaning that while there are enough registered nurses, there might not be as much oversight as in facilities with higher coverage. Specific incidents include a failure to monitor a resident's vital signs according to physician orders, leading to hospitalization, and a failure to store food safely, with expired items found in the kitchen. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing, the facility has notable weaknesses in compliance and safety practices that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Pennsylvania
- #322/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $8,190 in fines. Higher than 85% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 50 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 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
11pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
10 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
May 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one resident out of 24 sampled was free of chemical restraints (Resident 63).
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the pharmacy failed to ensure medication for wound care was available for one of the four residents reviewed (Resident 175)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed ...
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
Based on review of facility's policy, clinical records review and staff interviews, it was determine that the facility failed to appropriately monitor the weights and timely address identified signifi...
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, review of facility policies, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safet...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was served under sanitary conditions and failed to prevent cro...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based upon observation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and failed to ensure private health information was secure for one of 24 residents observed ...
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 records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor a fluid restriction order for one of the 18 residents reviewed (Resident 235).
Findings incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure skin impairment ident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain dish machine water temperatures by manufacturer recommendations for f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify hospice services and t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately monitor weight loss for one of three residents reviewed for nu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, and interviews with residents and staff, the facility failed to post pertinent State regulatory information, including State licensure office contact information and how to file...
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 observations, review of facility policies, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with the opportunity to file grievances ano...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review, policy and procedure review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to administer as needed pain medications for appropriate pain levels for two of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of facility policies, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safet...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's order to monitor the resident's vital signs and to ...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Naamans Creek Country Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR 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 Naamans Creek Country Manor Staffed?
CMS rates NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 11 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 59%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Naamans Creek Country Manor?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Naamans Creek Country Manor?
NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY 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 90 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BOOTHWYN, Pennsylvania.
How Does Naamans Creek Country Manor Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (58%) 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 Naamans Creek Country Manor?
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 Naamans Creek Country Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY 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 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 Naamans Creek Country Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR is high. At 58%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 59%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Naamans Creek Country Manor Ever Fined?
NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY MANOR has been fined $8,190 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,161. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Naamans Creek Country Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
NAAMANS CREEK COUNTRY 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.