GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #46 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 20 in Chester County, suggesting only one local option is rated higher. The facility is improving, with a decrease in issues from three in 2024 to one in 2025. Staffing receives a 3 out of 5 stars rating, with a turnover rate of 49%, which is average and similar to the state average of 46%. Notably, there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. However, there are some concerns, including less RN coverage than 89% of Pennsylvania facilities, which could impact the quality of care. Specific incidents noted include the failure to properly store food items, with opened bags of pasta not labeled or sealed, and there were delays in assessing and treating pressure wounds for two residents, which led to a decline in one resident's condition. Additionally, insulin vials were found undated, which poses a risk for medication management. Overall, while the facility shows strengths in certain areas, these weaknesses should be carefully considered by families.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #46/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% 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 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 the pharmacy provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
3 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
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documented evidence that consisted, adequate catheter care was provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to report results for laboratory studies to the ordering physician timely for one of 40 residents reviewed. (R...
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 policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food in the dry storage located next to the main kitchen.
Findings include:
Revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 deficiencies
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 and facility documentation review and resident/staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely treat a burn and failed to follow a physician medication p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical records facility documentation review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure one of 33 residents reviewed was free of unnecessary medications (Resident 137).
Findings include:
Review of Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
7 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical records review, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physici...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, resident and staff interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documented evidence that consisted, adequate cathete...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility f...
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
Based on clinical records review, staff, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment and service of a Peritoneal Dialysis (PD- treatment for kidney failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one of 32 residents reviewed (Resident...
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 the facility's policy and clinical records, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely and comprehensively assess and provide treatment to r...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy and procedure review, observations, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to date m...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy and procedure review, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin for one of four residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0777
(Tag F0777)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of an x-ray result for one of four residents reviewed. (Resident 2)
Findings Include:
...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, facility policy and procedure review, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined the f...
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). 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.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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 PRESTIGE HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 184 certified beds and approximately 169 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MALVERN, Pennsylvania.
How Does Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
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 Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION 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 5-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 Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION 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 Green Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
GREEN MEADOWS NURSING & REHABILITATION 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.