TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average compared to other facilities, sitting in the middle of the pack. It ranks #369 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 out of 6 in Adams County, indicating there is only one local option that ranks better. The facility is improving, having decreased its number of issues from 12 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. However, staffing is a concern with a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 60%, significantly above the state average of 46%. While there are no critical or serious deficiencies noted, the facility did have 22 concerns, including a failure to prevent pressure ulcers for a resident and improper storage of medications. Additionally, one resident did not receive adaptive feeding devices as required, which could impact their health and comfort. On a positive note, the nursing home has more RN coverage than 88% of Pennsylvania facilities, which can enhance resident care. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Pennsylvania
- #369/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $16,334 in fines. Higher than 71% of Pennsylvania facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
14pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the facility policy for reporting an allegation of neglect to th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional s...
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
Based on observations, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policy, observations, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed ensure the resident received care, consistent with professiona...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, product label review, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store drugs used in the facility in accordance with currently ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adaptive feeding devices for one of 24 residents reviewed (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
11 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 facility policy review, observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility...
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 clinical record review, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided in accordance with professio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services, eq...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for three of 24 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility provided documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment was free ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate labeling (opened date) of medication for three of six medication carts (Ann...
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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food/beverages in accordance with professional standards for food safety in three of three nou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control pr...
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 file review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each nurse aide was provided required in-service training consisting of no less than 12 hours p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, review of select facility documentation, as well as resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involv...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of resident transfer an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on state regulations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the faci...
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
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to discontinue one of two physician orders for the administration of oxygen for one of 27 residents reviewed (Resident 85).
...
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 policy review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from infection by not touching medication with bare hands for on...
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.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $16,334 in fines. Above average for Pennsylvania. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg Staffed?
CMS rates TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG during 2022 to 2024. These included: 22 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg?
TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 135 certified beds and approximately 127 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GETTYSBURG, Pennsylvania.
How Does Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg?
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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG 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 3-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 Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg Stick Around?
Staff turnover at TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. 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 Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg Ever Fined?
TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG has been fined $16,334 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,242. 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 Transitions Healthcare Gettysburg on Any Federal Watch List?
TRANSITIONS HEALTHCARE GETTYSBURG 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.