GROVE MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Grove Manor has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating it is below average and has some concerns regarding care quality. It ranks #429 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and is last among the ten nursing homes in Mercer County. The facility is showing improvement, as the number of issues identified decreased from 13 in 2023 to just 3 in 2024. However, staffing is a significant weakness, with only 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 48%, which is concerning because it suggests instability among caregivers. Additionally, there have been serious incidents of neglect, including the development of severe pressure ulcers due to inadequate monitoring and care, highlighting the need for improvement in resident care practices.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Pennsylvania
- #429/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $18,837 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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
Below Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of clinical records and facility documentation, and resident family and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with showers...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policies and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of neglect during care, which resulted in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were monitored, adequately assessed, and preventative m...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 maintain resident dignity regarding indwelling foley catheters...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records and facility policies, and staff interview, it was determined that the facilit...
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 14 residents reviewed (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dining assistance for one of 14 residents reviewed (Resident R19).
Findin...
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 documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain current information related to Hospice services for one of 14 resi...
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 review of facility policies and clinical records, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide oxygen according to physician's orders for one of 14...
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 on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent th...
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
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and food containers in a safe and sanitary manner in one of one nourish...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0836
(Tag F0836)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and Title 49. Professional and Vocational Standards, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assure that a Registered N...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · 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 baseline care plan was developed/implemented within the required t...
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 observations, review of facility policies, manufacturer's guidelines, Pennsylvania Department of Health PAHAN 694, and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of clinical records and facility policies and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure water was accessible to one of 54 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that bedside oxygen concentrators were maintained in a clean and sanitary m...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $18,837 in fines. Above average for Pennsylvania. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Grove Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GROVE MANOR an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Grove Manor Staffed?
CMS rates GROVE MANOR's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Grove Manor?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at GROVE MANOR during 2023 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 14 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Grove Manor?
GROVE MANOR 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 59 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GROVE CITY, Pennsylvania.
How Does Grove Manor Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, GROVE MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Grove Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Grove Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GROVE MANOR 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Grove Manor Stick Around?
GROVE MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 Grove Manor Ever Fined?
GROVE MANOR has been fined $18,837 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,267. 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 Grove Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
GROVE MANOR 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.