MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Masonic Village at Lafayette Hill has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #200 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #24 out of 58 in Montgomery County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. Unfortunately, the trend is worsening, as the number of identified issues increased from 4 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 34%, which is significantly lower than the state average. However, there were some concerning incidents, such as improper food storage practices and a lack of accessible grievance procedures for residents, which may hinder their ability to voice concerns. Overall, while the facility has strengths in staffing and safety records, families should be aware of the recent increase in issues and specific procedural shortcomings.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #200/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 71 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
- 14 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 (34%)
14 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
12pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the Resident Council meeting and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the grievance process was posted in a location visible and understan...
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
Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1 Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and resident repre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1Based on review of facility policies, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a writte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment was free of accidents and hazards for a cognitive...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's weights, were completed in a timely manner for 1 out of 13 residents (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Number of residents sampled:13Number of residents cited:1Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and int...
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
Number of residents sampled:1Number of residents cited:1Facility did provide dialysis site was assessed accord to PSP. Based on clinical record review, observations, policy review and staff interview,...
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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that facility did not ensure that opened medications were properly labeled and stored with the date that the medication was opened for one of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documents, resident interviews, meal tray observations and staff interviews, it was determined that ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility policy and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance resulting in a fal...
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 observation, facility documentation, facility policy review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and label drug according to professional standards of prac...
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 review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure prop...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maint...
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.
- • 34% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL 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 Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill Staffed?
CMS rates MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL during 2024 to 2025. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill?
MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL 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 60 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 77% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LAFAYETTE HILL, Pennsylvania.
How Does Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill?
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 Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL 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 Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill Stick Around?
MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill Ever Fined?
MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL 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 Masonic Village At Lafayette Hill on Any Federal Watch List?
MASONIC VILLAGE AT LAFAYETTE HILL 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.