ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER

945 DUKE STREET, LEBANON, PA 17042 (717) 274-1495
Non profit - Church related 105 Beds MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#153 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: September 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Alpine Valley Post Acute and Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families looking for care. It ranks #153 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 10 in Lebanon County, indicating that only four local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of identified issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 52%, which is around the state average, but less than ideal. Although there have been no fines recorded, the facility has less RN coverage than 86% of Pennsylvania facilities, which raises concerns about the quality of care. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a failure to change a resident's chest wound dressing as required by physician's orders, leading to visible drainage, and inadequate supervision during mealtime for residents at risk of choking, which previously resulted in a choking incident. Additionally, another resident's medication records were found to be inaccurate, with blood pressure medication being given despite the resident's readings being too low. Overall, while Alpine Valley has some strengths, such as a decent Trust Grade and no fines, the staffing concerns and specific incidents highlight areas that need significant improvement.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In Pennsylvania
#153/653
Top 23%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
52% 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
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2024: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 52%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

Sept 2024 4 deficiencies
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 60) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 60 had diagnoses that included skin cancer and chronic kidney disease. A physician's orders dated June 26, 2024, directed staff to apply a dressing to the resident's chest wound site two times per day. On September 12, 2024, the physician's order was changed to a daily dressing change. A review of the August and September 2024 Treatment Administration Records (TAR) revealed that there was no evidence the treatment was done or refused in the morning of August 3, 2024, and in the evening of September 5, 2024. On September 17, 2024, at 11:35 a.m., observation of Resident 60 revealed his chest wound did not have a dressing covering it, and small amounts of yellow and red drainage could be seen seeping through his white shirt. On September 17, 2024, at 1:01 p.m., in an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse 1, it was confirmed that there was no dressing on the wound. In an interview on September 20, 2024, at 11:48 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that a dressing should have been on the wound, and the dressing should have been changed, as ordered. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately sup...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately supervise residents while eating who were at risk for choking and eating non-edible items for two of 19 sampled residents. (Residents 25, 235) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, dysphagia, and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required supervision for meals. Review of the care plan revealed the resident was at risk for nutritional problems related to his dementia and dysphagia and staff was to observe for signs and symptoms of dysphagia, such as, choking, pocketing food in his mouth, coughing, etc Review of an incident report dated June 9, 2024, revealed that the resident had a choking episode that required mechanical assistance from staff. A progress note dated June 13, 2024, from the registered dietitian noted that Resident 25 was to eat his meals in the dining room with staff supervision. Observations on September 17, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., September 18, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. to 1:05 p.m., and September 19, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. to 1:08 p.m., revealed that the resident was eating lunch in his room with no supervision. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 235 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and a cognitive communication deficit. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required supervision for meals. Review of a nursing admission noted dated September 3, 2024, revealed that the resident had pica (a mental health condition where a person compulsively eats things that are not food). Review of the care plan revealed the resident was at risk for nutritional problems related to a history of pica and staff was to observe for signs or symptoms of dysphagia. Observations on September 17, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., September 18, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. to 1:05 p.m., and September 19, 2024, from 12:40 p.m. to 1:08 p.m., revealed that the resident was eating lunch in her room with no supervision. In an interview on September 20, 2024, at 12:05 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the residents should have been supervised with all meals. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were accurate and complete for one of 19 sampled residents. (Residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were accurate and complete for one of 19 sampled residents. (Residents 22) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 22 had diagnoses that included heart disease and hypertension. A physician's order dated August 16, 2024, directed staff to administer a blood pressure medication (propranolol) one time a day and staff was to hold the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure was less than 130 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). In an interview on September 18, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. Resident 22 stated that staff frequently gave her blood pressure medication when her blood pressure was outside of the set parameters. A review of Resident 22's medication administration records for August and September 2024 revealed that staff documented that they administered the blood pressure medication nine times when her blood pressure was less than 130 mmHg. In an interview on September 20, 2024, at 11:25 a.m., the administrator confirmed that staff did not properly document that the medication was held when Resident 22's blood pressure was below the ordered parameters in the clinical record. 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Medical records.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**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 notify the resident's represe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 notify the resident's representative(s) of transfer and the reasons for the move in writing for two of five sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 29, 83) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 29 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no evidence that the resident's responsible party was provided with written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 83 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no evidence that the resident's responsible party was provided with written information regarding the resident's transfer to the hospital. In an interview on September 20, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., the Administrator confirmed that written transfer information, including the reasons for the move, was not provided to residents' representatives.
Mar 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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladde...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladder incontinence and provide services to restore bladder function as much as possible for one of five sampled residents. (Resident CL1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Resident Bladder/Bowel Program, last reviewed April 28, 2023, revealed that facility staff was to complete an incontinence assessment within seven days of admission using the admission nursing assessment, incontinence risk assessment, and a three day bowel/bladder pattern record. After completion of the bladder/bowel incontinence assessment and the three day bowel/bladder pattern record, an assessment would be completed to determine if there was a pattern present, what type of incontinence, and then determine which incontinence program would be appropriate. The program was to be documented on the care plan. Clinical record review revealed that Resident CL1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia and hypertension. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated February 10, 2024, the resident needed assistance from staff for toileting. The assessment further indicated that the resident was incontinent of urine and was not on a toileting program. Review of the current care plan revealed that Resident CL1's type of urinary incontinence was not identified and there were no specific interventions developed to address CL1's urinary incontinence. There was no documented evidence that an incontinence risk assessment, and an assessment to determine the type of incontinence and an appropriate incontinence program were ever completed. In an interview on March 14, 2024, at 1:52 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that there was no documented evidence that Resident CL1's urinary incontinence had been assessed per facility policy. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Oct 2023 3 deficiencies
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify the resident's respons...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 notify the resident's responsible party of a change in condition for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 17) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 17 had diagnoses that included diabetes, obesity, and anemia. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident was alert with confusion, and required extensive assistance from staff. Review of a nurse's note dated August 18, 2023, revealed the resident developed an open wound on the sacrum. There was no documented evidence that the facility notified the resident's responsible party of the change in the resident's medical status regarding the open wound until August 28, 2023. In an interview on October 20, 2023, at 12:20 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the resident's responsible party had been notified of the change in condition. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident was administered medication as prescribed by the physician for one of 18 sampled residents. (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident was administered medication as prescribed by the physician for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 77) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 77 had diagnoses that included anxiety disorder, depression, and dementia. On August 25, 2023, the physician ordered for staff to apply ABHR (a combination of Ativan, Benadryl, Haldol, and Reglan) gel every four hours. Review of the medication administration records for August and September 2023, revealed that the resident had not received the scheduled doses of the medication 25 times in August 2023, and 19 times in September 2023. Review of nursing documentation revealed that the medication was not delivered from the pharmacy August 25, through 29, 2023, and September 17, through 20, 2023. In an interview on October 20, 2023, the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that Resident 77's medication had not been delivered by the pharmacy on the above-mentioned dates. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a representative of the Office of the Stat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a representative of the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman of resident transfers for five of six residents sampled who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 4, 14, 47, 70, 77) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 4 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and September 10, 2023, after changes in condition. There was no documented evidence that notification was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 14 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that notification was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 47 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that notification was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 70 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and August 22, 2023, after changes in condition. There was no documented evidence that notification was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 77 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that notification was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. In an interview on October 20, 2023, at 11:30 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility had not contacted the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman for the above-mentioned resident transfers. 28 Pa Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 that physician's orders...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 that physician's orders were implemented for one of four sampled residents. (Resident CL1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident CL1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. On November 6, 2022, the physician ordered for staff to notify her if the resident's systolic blood pressure was greater than 180 or less than 100 mm/Hg (millimeters of mercury). A review of the resident's blood pressures for November and December 2022, revealed that on November 9, 12, and December 5, 2022, CL1's systolic blood pressure was less than 100 mm/Hg. There was no documented evidence that the physician was notified of CL1's systolic blood pressures that were less than 100 mm/Hg. In an interview on February 9, 2023, the Nursing Home Administrator stated that there was no documented evidence that the physician was notified of the resident's systolic blood pressures on November 9, 12, and December 5, 2022. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • 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.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 79%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2023 to 2024. These included: 7 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center?

ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 105 certified beds and approximately 101 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LEBANON, Pennsylvania.

How Does Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center?

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 Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center Stick Around?

ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 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 Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Alpine Valley Post Acute And Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER 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.

ALPINE VALLEY POST ACUTE AND HEALTHCARE CENTER

945 DUKE STREET, LEBANON, PA 17042 | (717) 274-1495

B+
Trust Grade (80/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
9
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025