PENNSBURG MANOR

530 MACOBY STREET, PENNSBURG, PA 18073 (215) 679-8076
For profit - Partnership 120 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#211 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Pennsburg Manor has received a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #211 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of all state nursing homes, and #26 out of 58 in Montgomery County, indicating it is one of the better local choices. However, the facility is currently experiencing a worsening trend, as issues increased from 1 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 3 out of 5 rating and a turnover rate of only 25%, well below the state average, which means staff are likely more familiar with residents' needs. On the positive side, there have been no fines recorded, showing compliance with regulations, and there is more RN coverage than 87% of Pennsylvania facilities, which helps catch potential issues. However, there are some notable concerns. An inspection revealed that the dietary department had unsanitary conditions, including stained ceiling tiles and dirty equipment. Additionally, the facility failed to respect the dignity of one resident and did not adequately assess and manage bladder incontinence for another, which could lead to further health complications. While there are strengths in staffing and compliance, these issues highlight areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In Pennsylvania
#211/653
Top 32%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 56 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (25%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (25%)

    23 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

May 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner respectful of each resident's dignity to promote the quality of life for one of 26 sampled residents. (Resident 257) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Patient Security Bracelet, last reviewed July 1, 2024, revealed that residents were evaluated for the need of a wandering security bracelet to serve as a safety measure to prevent elopement (unauthorized departure from the facility) and wandering in unsafe areas of the center. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 257 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pyogenic arthritis of the right knee joint (inflammation in one or more of the joints caused by an infection) and spinal stenosis (narrowing of the space in the spine). Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was not cognitively impaired, required supervision with ambulation and transfers, and did not exhibit wandering behavior. Review of Resident 257's Elopement Evaluation dated April 20, 2025, revealed that the resident was not ask risk for elopement. Further review revealed another Elopement Evaluation dated April 30, 2025, stating that the resident had expressed a desire to go home and that the resident wandered. However, there was no evidence in the clinical record to support that Resident 257 had wandered or attempted to elope from the facility. Observation on May 4, 2025, at 12:19 p.m., revealed Resident 257 sitting up in bed with a wandering security bracelet on the left ankle. In an interview at that time, Resident 257 stated, This band is an insult to my intelligence; where am I going to go? I am here for antibiotics and physical therapy. I just want to go outside when it's nice and they won't allow it. There was no evidence in the clinical record to support that the wandering security bracelet was discussed with the resident or that the resident was agreeable to its use. In an interview on May 6, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., the Administrator stated that the resident should not have had the wandering security bracelet. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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 of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladder incontinence and provide treatment and services to restore bladder function as much as possible for one of four sampled residents with urinary incontinence. (Resident 97) Findings include: Review of the policy entitled, Continence Management, last reviewed January 2025, revealed that residents were to be assessed for the need for a continence management program as part of the nursing assessment process. A urinary incontinence assessment was to be completed upon admission. The purpose was to provide appropriate treatment and services for residents with urinary incontinence to minimize urinary tract infections and restore continence to the extent possible. The facility was to develop individualized interventions and a plan of care based on information from assessments and voiding records/documentation. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 97 was admitted [DATE], and had diagnoses of encephalopathy, disturbance of the brain, and weakness. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident was only slightly cognitively impaired, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was not on a toileting program. The assessment also indicated that the problem of urinary incontinence was to be addressed in the care plan. On March 6, 2025, a nurse documented that the resident was incontinent of urine and used adult briefs. There was no documented evidence that a urinary incontinence assessment was completed upon admission in order to assess and provide treatment and services to the resident for urinary incontinence in order to restore bladder continence to the extent possible. In addition, there was no care plan developed with specific interventions to address/restore urinary incontinence. In an interview on May 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., the Administrator stated that the staff had not completed a urinary incontinence assessment nor developed and implemented specific care planned interventions to address and attempt to restore bladder function as per facility policy. 28 Pa.Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department. Findings include: An environmental tour of the food service department on M...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department. Findings include: An environmental tour of the food service department on May 4, 2025, at 9:06 a.m., revealed the following: There were five stained ceiling tiles above a table that contained a large coffee maker. There were areas on the back splash of the stove and around the burners that were stained with a blackish/brown substance. The bottom of the convection oven was dirty with burnt crumbs. The doors on the inside of the convection oven were covered with grease and burnt substances. 28 Pa.Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Jan 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 that the responsible party was notified of a change in condition for one of four sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the responsible party was notified of a change in condition for one of four sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included heart disease and major depressive disorder. On December 20, 2024, a physician ordered for staff to administer an increased dosage of an anti-depressant medication (Zoloft) from 50 milligrams (mg) to 75 mg. There was no documentation to support that the resident's responsible party was notified that the medication dosage was increased. In an interview on December 20, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the responsible party had been notified the dosage of the medication had been increased. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
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 ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 28 sampled residents. (Resident 64) Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 28 sampled residents. (Resident 64) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 64 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure). A physician's order dated March 30, 2024, directed staff to administer a medication (midodrine) one time a day. Staff were not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was more than 90 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Review of Resident 64's medication administration record revealed staff administered the medication four times in April 2024, when the resident's SBP was greater than 90 mmHg. In an interview on April 19, 2024, at 9:10 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the medication was administered outside established parameters for Resident 64. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Oct 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

Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a physician's order for one of four sampled residents. (Resident CR2) Findings include: Clinical record review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a physician's order for one of four sampled residents. (Resident CR2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident CR2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, depression, and deconditioning. A physician's order dated September 26, 2023, directed staff to administer a medication to treat depression (cariprazine) once daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2023, revealed that the medication was not administered as ordered by the physician on October 7 and 8, 2023. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Mar 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, functional and comfortable environ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, functional and comfortable environment for residents on one of two nursing units. (second floor nursing unit) Findings include: During an environmental tour of the second floor nursing unit on March 7, 2023, at 10:28 a.m., observation revealed the following: The walls were marred and scratched in the bathrooms of resident rooms 201, 203, 214, 215, 218, and 227. In addition, in the bathrooms of resident rooms [ROOM NUMBER], the flooring was buckled. The garbage can in resident bathroom [ROOM NUMBER] was overflowing and there was garbage scattered on the floor. Observation in the central bathroom on the North side of the unit revealed that the toilet seat was very loose and coming apart from the toilet. There was no toilet paper holder in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. In resident room [ROOM NUMBER], there were floor tiles missing underneath the bottom of the bed by the window. The bottom edging of the door frame of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was jagged and sticking out from the wall. The walls in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] were marred and scratched. Both medication carts for the North and South wings were soiled with spillage on the sides and along the bottom rims of the carts. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
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+ (83/100). 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.
  • • 25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
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 Pennsburg Manor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PENNSBURG MANOR 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 Pennsburg Manor Staffed?

CMS rates PENNSBURG MANOR's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 25%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pennsburg Manor?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at PENNSBURG MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 7 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Pennsburg Manor?

PENNSBURG MANOR 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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PENNSBURG, Pennsylvania.

How Does Pennsburg Manor Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, PENNSBURG MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (25%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pennsburg Manor?

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 Pennsburg Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PENNSBURG MANOR 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 Pennsburg Manor Stick Around?

Staff at PENNSBURG MANOR tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 25%, the facility is 20 percentage points below the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Pennsburg Manor Ever Fined?

PENNSBURG MANOR 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 Pennsburg Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

PENNSBURG MANOR 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.

PENNSBURG MANOR

530 MACOBY STREET, PENNSBURG, PA 18073 | (215) 679-8076

B+
Trust Grade (83/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
7
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star quality
  • Low turnover (25%)

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025