CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates it is slightly above average among nursing homes. It ranks #168 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 17 in Cumberland County, meaning there are few better local options. The facility's performance has been stable, with 16 issues identified consistently over the past two years, and notably, it has not accrued any fines, which is a positive sign. However, staffing is a concern, with a high turnover rate of 96%, significantly above the state average, which may affect resident care. Specific issues noted by inspectors include a lack of training for nurse aides, which is critical for providing quality care, and failures in monitoring hydration for certain residents, underscoring the need for improved compliance with care protocols. Overall, while there are strengths such as good RN coverage and an overall high star rating, the facility does face significant challenges that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #168/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 96% turnover. Very high, 48 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 69 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
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
50pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
48 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and r...
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
**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 provide care and services in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff implemented infection control policies to prevent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on personnel training record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each nurse aide was provided required in-service training, consisting of no less th...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident status for three of 16 residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident comprehensive plan of care was reviewed and revised in accordance with residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate urinary catheter care for one of two resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 facility policy review, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper monitoring for maintenance of acceptable parameters of nu...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for one of 16 residents reviewed (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adapt...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of personnel training records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each nurse aide was provided with the required in-service training consisting of...
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 policy, clinical record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to precisely and effectively monitor hydration s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, facility policy, select facility document review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined th...
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 observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food/beverages in accordance with professional standards for food sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews, policy review, Centers for Disease Control guidelines, and documents reviewed for implementation of a water management program, it was determined the facility failed to impl...
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.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 96% turnover. Very high, 48 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
About This Facility
What is Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community Staffed?
CMS rates CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 96%, which is 50 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 100%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY during 2023 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community?
CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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 58 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CARLISLE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (96%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community?
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 Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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 4-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 Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY is high. At 96%, the facility is 50 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 100%. 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 Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community Ever Fined?
CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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 Cumberland Crossings Retirement Community on Any Federal Watch List?
CUMBERLAND CROSSINGS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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.