MUNCY PLACE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Muncy Place has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below average performance and some concerns. It ranks #321 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 8 in Lycoming County, meaning only one local option is ranked higher. The facility is worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 5 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 34%, which is significantly lower than the state average. Although there are no fines on record, there have been serious and concerning incidents, including staff neglect that resulted in a resident suffering a fracture and failures to maintain sanitary food storage practices. Overall, while Muncy Place excels in staffing, it faces critical areas needing improvement in care quality and safety.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Pennsylvania
- #321/653
- Safety Record
- High 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 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
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, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
12pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regime was free from potentially unnecessary psychotropic medication fo...
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care ...
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care regarding physician ordered medication parameters for one of 21 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, observation, and family and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician ordered interventions for a resident with limited range ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and ...
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
Based on review of select facility policies and procedures, observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement contact precautions for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident dignity during dining for two of two residents reviewed (Residents 94 and 100).Findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food items in a safe and sanitary manner and maintain the environment in a safe and sanitary condition in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
1 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for one of 21 residents reviewed (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow up with needed dental services for one of two residents reviewed (Resident 39).
F...
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
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate enhanced barrier transmission-based precautions for one of 21 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain a resident's range of motion (ROM) for seven of eight resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
6 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to promote resident dignity during dining in one of two dining rooms observed (second floor dining room, Resident 1...
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 F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of personal health information and a resident's right to privacy for four of six residen...
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
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent (Resident 302).
Findings inclu...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store and secure medications on two of three nursing units (First Floor [NAME] Hall, Second Floor; Resi...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on select review of policies, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective Water Management Program for the prevention and control of wa...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve food in a sanitary environment and maintain equipment in proper working order in the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 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
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was det...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 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.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Muncy Place's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MUNCY PLACE an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Muncy Place Staffed?
CMS rates MUNCY PLACE'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 Muncy Place?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at MUNCY PLACE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Muncy Place?
MUNCY PLACE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by UPMC SENIOR COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 138 certified beds and approximately 101 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MUNCY, Pennsylvania.
How Does Muncy Place Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, MUNCY PLACE's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Muncy Place?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Muncy Place Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MUNCY PLACE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Muncy Place Stick Around?
MUNCY PLACE 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 Muncy Place Ever Fined?
MUNCY PLACE 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 Muncy Place on Any Federal Watch List?
MUNCY PLACE 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.