MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Manchester Commons of Presbyterian Seniorcare has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating that it is above average and recommended for families considering nursing homes. It ranks #77 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state, and #4 out of 18 in Erie County, meaning only three local options are rated higher. However, the facility is currently experiencing a trend of worsening conditions, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing appears to be a strength, with a perfect 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff remain long enough to build relationships with residents. On the downside, the facility has incurred $4,226 in fines, which is average but indicates some compliance issues. Specific incidents noted during inspections include failing to offer a resident the opportunity to participate in their care plan development, inconsistent documentation regarding a resident's resuscitation preferences, and not providing proper notification to residents about hospital transfers. While the nursing home has excellent RN coverage, being above 81% of facilities in the state, these concerns highlight areas needing improvement. Overall, Manchester Commons shows potential with strong staffing and decent rankings, but families should weigh the recent compliance issues carefully.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #77/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $4,226 in fines. Higher than 87% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 72 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
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident was offered the opportunity to partic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to not...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident...
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 review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for hospice services for one of two hospice residents reviewed (Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clinical rationale for the continued use of a PRN (as needed) psyc...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately discard outdated medications for one of three medication carts revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the most recent Department ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for one of 19 residents (Resident R65) and fail...
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 review of facility policy and clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance...
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 review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure recommendations made from the consultant pharmacist were acted upon for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications subject to abu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
2 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
Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident R42).
Findings incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a written summary of the baseline care plan was provided to resident...
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+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • $4,226 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 40% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE 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 Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare Staffed?
CMS rates MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare?
MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE 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 78 certified beds and approximately 71 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ERIE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare?
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 Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE 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 Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare Stick Around?
MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare Ever Fined?
MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE has been fined $4,226 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,121. 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 Manchester Commons Of Presbyterian Seniorcare on Any Federal Watch List?
MANCHESTER COMMONS OF PRESBYTERIAN SENIORCARE 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.