LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg

4855 WEST RIDGE ROAD, ERIE, PA 16506 (814) 836-5300
Non profit - Corporation 80 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#71 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: September 2025

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

Overview

LECOM at Asbury Ridge, also known as Saint Mary's Asbury Ridge, has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating a high level of quality and care. Ranking #71 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania places it in the top half, while its county ranking of #3 out of 18 suggests that it is one of the better options in Erie County. The facility's performance has been stable over recent years, with the same number of issues reported in both 2023 and 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect 5-star rating and RN coverage that exceeds 94% of other facilities in the state, although staff turnover is average at 50%. While there are no fines on record, recent inspector findings highlighted some areas of concern, including difficulties residents faced in communicating with masked staff and a failure to label medication properly, which indicates room for improvement in maintaining resident care and safety.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#71/653
Top 10%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
2 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 92 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
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

Sept 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to label multi-dose containers of Tuberculin solution (used to test for the disease tuberculosis) with the date t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to label multi-dose containers of Tuberculin solution (used to test for the disease tuberculosis) with the date they were opened in one of two medication storage rooms. Findings include: Observation on 9/10/25, at 10:15 a.m. of a medication storage refrigerator revealed an opened and undated multi-dose vial of Tuberculin solution. During an interview on 9/10/25, at 10:20 a.m. Licensed Practical Nurse Employee E1 confirmed that the multi-dose vials of Tuberculin solution should have been labeled with the date it was opened. During an interview on 9/10/25, at 10:35 a.m. the Director of Nursing confirmed that the multi-dose vials are labeled to discard after 30 days opened and that staff would not be able to determine when to discard the vials due to the lack of an opened date. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
Jan 2025 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the hospice/facility agreement and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain current information related to Hospice services for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the hospice/facility agreement and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain current information related to Hospice services for one of three residents reviewed (Closed Record Resident CR1). Findings include: A Hospice Care Services Agreement dated 2/08/06, indicated that, Hospice shall communicate with facility to ensure coordination of patient care services; Hospice Health Aides shall provide a copy of the completed assignment form to the facility; facility and Hospice each shall prepare and maintain records concerning patients receiving services under this agreement; and such records shall be available for review and inspection by each party as necessary for the treatment of patients under this agreement. Resident CR1's clinical record revealed an admission date of 1/12/21, with diagnoses that included senile degeneration of the brain (irreversible memory loss, behavioral and cognitive decline, personality changes, and a decreasing ability to cope with everyday life), encounter for palliative care (indicates that a patient's goals are comfort-oriented), mood disorder, difficulty swallowing. A care plan initiated 9/01/23, indicated the need for Hospice care due to the terminal condition of senile degeneration of the brain. Further review of Resident CR1's clinical record revealed a revocation of Hospice services dated 8/19/24, and a provider progress note dated 8/20/24, that indicated the discontinue of Hospice services. Resident CR1's clinical record contained Hospice communication documents with a visit date of 6/18/24, and there was no evidence of Hospice communication sheets beyond 6/18/24. During an interview on 1/06/25, at 12:06 p.m. the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no evidence of Hospice communication documents for Resident CR1 between 6/18/24, and 8/19/24, (date Hospice services were revoked). 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a)(b) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f)(iii)(viii)(ix) Medical records 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders in accordance with s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders in accordance with standards of practice regarding respiratory care equipment for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident R11). Findings include: Review of a facility policy entitled Oxygen Administration dated 5/23/23, revealed, O2 [oxygen] tubing is to be changed weekly, Sunday on 11pm-7 am shift by nursing and as needed humidifier bottle changed weekly. Review of a facility policy entitled Administering Medications Through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer [medical device to administer medications for respiratory conditions] dated 5/23/23, revealed, Nurse to change equipment and tubing every Sunday (11pm - 7am shift). Review of Resident R11's clinical record revealed an admission date of 2/28/23, with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD-a condition that obstructs air flow in the lungs with symptoms of difficulty breathing, coughing and shortness of breath), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF - a progressive heart disease that weakens the pumping action of the heart muscles, causing fatigue and shortness of breath in the resident), and Permanent Atrial Fibrillation (A-Fib - a type of abnormal, rapid heartbeat that is present all the time, causing shortness of breath, heart palpitations, weakness and can lead to development of blood clots). Review of R11's clinical record revealed physician's orders dated 11/18/23, that identified the use of oxygen through a nasal canula (tubing with prongs inserted to the nostrils that deliver oxygen into the resident's nostrils) and physician's orders for nebulizer treatments as needed for shortness of breath, wheezing. Observation on 11/28/23, at 10:25 a.m. revealed that Resident R11's oxygen nasal canula and oxygen humidifier bottle did not have dates identified to indicate when they were last changed. Further observation revealed Resident R11's slow-volume (handheld) nebulizer device that also did not have a date when it was last changed. During an interview on 11/28/23, at 10:30 a.m. Resident R11 indicated that staff have not replaced the oxygen humidifier, nasal canula, or nebulizer device and tubing weekly. During an interview on 11/29/23, at 10:02 a.m. the Infection Control Nurse confirmed that Resident R11's oxygen nasal canula, humidifier bottle, nebulizer device, and tubing all did not have a date to identify when they had been changed according to physician's orders and that all the items should be dated when changed by staff. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c)(d) Resident care policies 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of PAHAN 694, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained the resident's psychosocial well-being for six o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of PAHAN 694, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained the resident's psychosocial well-being for six of 24 residents reviewed (Residents R68, R26, R53, R56, R57, and R65). Findings include: Review of the 2023 PAHAN 694 5-11-UPD UPDATE encourages the use of masks until no new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been identified for 14 days. From 11/27/23, through 11/28/23, during resident interviews, the following residents complained of an inability to communicate with masked staff members: During interview on 11/27/23, at 11:10 a.m. Resident R68 expressed frustration with difficulties communicating with staff members as their masks inhibited the resident's ability to hear what the staff were saying to them. During interview on 11/27/23, at 1:35 p.m. Resident R26 complained that on several occasions they avoided communicating with staff as it was too hard to understand what the staff were saying while they were wearing masks and wasn't worth the trouble. During interview on 11/27/23, at 2:15 p.m. Resident R53 disclosed that it was difficult to communicate with the staff due to their wearing masks and that they were made to feel as though the staff were afraid that they had some sort of a disease. During interview on 11/28/23, at 11:20 a.m. Resident R56 indicated he/she could not hear conversation and was noted with confusion about the mask being worn; making motion to remove mask. During interview on 11/27/23, at 2:30 p.m. Resident R57 indicated he/she asks staff to repeat themselves several times and eventually requests staff to pull the mask down so he/she can understand conversation. During interview on 11/27/23, at 3:00 p.m. Resident R65 indicated he/she has a difficult time hearing staff and consistently asks them to repeat themselves and/or pull the mask down to understand and hear what they are saying. During interview on 11/27/23, at 4:00 p.m. Nursing Staff Employee E5 revealed that it was very difficult' to communicate with residents while wearing a mask. During interview on 11/28/23, at 1:20 p.m. Nursing Staff Employee E6 confirmed that the residents had a difficult time understanding the staff while wearing masks. During interview on 11/30/23, at approximately 11:50 a.m. the facility's President, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the staff were made to wear masks at all times in the resident areas. They also indicated that they were using the 2023 PAHAN 694 5-11-UPD UPDATE (PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2023 PAHAN 694 5-11-UPD UPDATE: Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings) to determine whether staff should be made to wear masks. During interview on 11/30/23, at approximately 11:50 a.m. the facility's President, NHA, and DON confirmed that there had been no new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 35 days, revealing that the last case had been identified on 10/26/23. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(a) Resident rights
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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg 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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg Staffed?

CMS rates LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg during 2023 to 2025. These included: 4 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg?

LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg 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 80 certified beds and approximately 66 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ERIE, Pennsylvania.

How Does Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (50%) 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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg?

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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg 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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg Stick Around?

LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg Ever Fined?

LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg 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 Lecom At Asbury Ridge Dba Saint Mary'S Asbury Ridg on Any Federal Watch List?

LECOM at Asbury Ridge dba Saint Mary's Asbury Ridg 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.