ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
St. Luke's Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for care. It ranks #127 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and is the top choice among 12 facilities in Schuylkill County. The facility is improving, with the number of issues reported decreasing from 5 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, earning a perfect 5-star rating and a low turnover rate of 21%, much better than the state average of 46%. However, the center has incurred $11,450 in fines, which is higher than 77% of similar facilities, signaling some compliance concerns. While there is more RN coverage than 83% of Pennsylvania facilities, recent inspections noted issues such as inadequate colostomy care for a resident and insufficient pain management plans, which are areas that need attention. Overall, families considering this facility should weigh its strengths in staffing and rankings against the noted concerns for care management.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #127/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 21% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 27 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $11,450 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 62 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
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (21%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (21%)
27 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
3 deficiencies
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
Based on a review of clinical records, facility policies, professional guidelines, staff interviews, and wound care documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, select facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined the facility f...
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 review of clinical records, select facility policy and controlled drug records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement procedures to promote accurate accounti...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an ind...
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 a review of clinical records, observations, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined the facility failed to en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, information submitted by the facility, select facility reports, and resident and staff in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
7 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 review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop an individualized ...
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 a review clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide services consistent...
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
**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 ensure that the pharmacist id...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate and com...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0691
(Tag F0691)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to consistently monitor a r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed...
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+ (88/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • 21% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 27 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $11,450 in fines. Above average for Pennsylvania. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 21%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 48 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COALDALE, Pennsylvania.
How Does St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (21%) 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 St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
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 St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?
Staff at ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 21%, the facility is 24 percentage points below the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 25%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?
ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $11,450 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,193. 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 St Luke'S Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
ST LUKE'S REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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.