THORNWALD HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Thornwald Home in Carlisle, Pennsylvania has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care for their loved ones. It ranks #131 out of 653 facilities statewide, placing it in the top half of Pennsylvania nursing homes, and #4 out of 17 in Cumberland County, meaning there are only three better local options. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 34%, which is significantly lower than the state average. While the home has no fines, which is a positive sign, there have been some concerns, such as failures to prevent urinary tract infections in residents with catheters and improper food storage practices, indicating areas that still need attention.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #131/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% 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 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (34%)
14 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
12pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on personnel training file review, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures by not completing annual a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse in a timely m...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, review of facility reported incidents, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 ensure a resi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents receive appropriate treatment and services to prevent urin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 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 one of 22 residents revi...
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 observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's care plan was reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's...
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 review of the clinical records and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure ...
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for catheter care for one of two residents reviewed for cathete...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
7 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 observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services are provided in accordance with professional stan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of select facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed at least annually and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician reviewed and responded to a pharmacy review recomm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for three of 21 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the residents' comprehensive plans of care were updated upon changes in the re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in suf...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). 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.
- • 34% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Thornwald Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THORNWALD HOME 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 Thornwald Home Staffed?
CMS rates THORNWALD HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Thornwald Home?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at THORNWALD HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 18 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Thornwald Home?
THORNWALD HOME 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 83 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CARLISLE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Thornwald Home Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, THORNWALD HOME's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Thornwald Home?
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 Thornwald Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THORNWALD HOME 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 Thornwald Home Stick Around?
THORNWALD HOME has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Thornwald Home Ever Fined?
THORNWALD HOME 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 Thornwald Home on Any Federal Watch List?
THORNWALD HOME 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.