SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
SNU Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option for families looking for care. It ranks #231 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and is the best choice among four options in Armstrong County. The facility is improving, reducing issues from 13 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, with a perfect rating of 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 46%, which is on par with the state average. While there have been no fines, there are concerns regarding infection control practices that could lead to potential cross-contamination, and the facility has not ensured that residents can file complaints anonymously, highlighting areas that need attention despite its overall good standing.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #231/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% 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 153 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
- 21 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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review facility polices, observations, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, resident records, a facility tour, and staff interview it was determined that the facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
13 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' medical information on one of two medicat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, homelike environment for one of two elevators (Elevator 1).
Findings include:
An observation o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, newly hired personnel records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to properly screen an employment by completing a state background che...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that the ne...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a transfer noti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident or r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documents, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed ...
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication regime wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to submit direct care staffing information in the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system for one of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of facility policy, plans of correction, and the results of the current and former surveys, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) com...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, review of Quality Assurance attendance records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meeti...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policies, clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to make certain that a complaint/grievance could be filed anonymously for 13 of 13 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility po...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely issue a Noti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, homelike environment for one of two elevators (Elevator 1).
Findings include:
Observation on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determin...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to imp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and review of facility policy the facility failed to make certain that a grievance official is posted with contact information and that the facility had a policy and procedure tha...
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
- • 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.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp Staffed?
CMS rates SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP during 2023 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp?
SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP 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 17 certified beds and approximately 11 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in KITTANNING, Pennsylvania.
How Does Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp?
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 Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP 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 4-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 Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp Stick Around?
SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp Ever Fined?
SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP 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 Snu Armstrong Co Memorial Hosp on Any Federal Watch List?
SNU ARMSTRONG CO MEMORIAL HOSP 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.