Cathedral Village

600 EAST CATHEDRAL ROAD, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19128 (215) 487-1300
Non profit - Corporation 82 Beds PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#276 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Cathedral Village nursing home has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about its overall quality and care. It ranks #276 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state but still raising red flags due to its poor trust grade. The facility is improving, as evidenced by a decrease in reported issues from 16 in 2024 to 11 in 2025, but it still has critical problems, including the alarming situation where an unlicensed staff member provided care as a Registered Nurse to 63 residents. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4/5 star rating, although the 60% turnover rate is concerning, significantly above the Pennsylvania average. Additionally, the facility has faced $219,489 in fines, which is higher than 98% of Pennsylvania facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Pennsylvania
#276/653
Top 42%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$219,489 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 11 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 60%

13pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $219,489

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Jul 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, and staff interview it was det...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation to rule out an allegation of neglect for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R4). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Abuse Neglect or Exploitation reviewed July 2, 2025, revealed neglect is the failure of the facility, or its employees, to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress to the resident despite knowledge that the care and services were required.Further review of facility policy revealed events involving evidence of abuse and neglect should be thoroughly investigated including obtaining statements from all potential persons who might have had contact with the resident in the previous 24 hours or within the timeframe that has been identified.Review of Resident R4's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS - federally mandated resident assessment and care screening) dated March 4, 2025, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - assesses for cognitive impairments) score of 14 (cognitively intact).Review of Resident R4's MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident had diagnoses of arthritis (inflammation of the joints), polyosteoarthritis (arthritis that affects multiple joints simultaneously), and muscle weakness.Further review of Resident R4's MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident used a walker and wheelchair for mobility devices and required supervision/touching assistance for walking 10-150 feet and toilet transfers (the ability to get on and off the toilet/commode).Review of Resident R4's comprehensive care plan dated April 18, 2025, revealed the resident had impaired functional status related to transfers, walking, and toileting.Review of Resident R4's comprehensive care plan dated April 18, 2025, revealed the resident was at risk for falling related to pain with movement and osteoarthritis.Review of Resident R4's clinical record revealed a nursing note dated April 14, 2025, at 1:14 a.m. by licensed nurse (LPN), Employee E5, that indicated during routine rounds the nurse aide informed LPN, Employee E5, that Resident R4 was found lying on the bathroom floor at approximately 11:40 p.m. Per documentation, Resident R4 stated he/she attempted to call for help to use the bathroom, but when no one responded, she decided to ambulate independently and subsequently ended up on the floor.Interview on July 17, 2025, at 2:15 p.m. with Director of Nursing, Employee E2, revealed no incident report or investigation was available related to Resident R4's allegation of neglect that no staff responded to the resident's need for assistance with the bathroom and subsequent fall.28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Number of residents sampled: 3Number of residents cited: 2the facility did not ensure a medication error rate of < 5%Based on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Number of residents sampled: 3Number of residents cited: 2the facility did not ensure a medication error rate of < 5%Based on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of five percent or greater for two of three residents observed during medication administration (Residents R32, and R67). Findings include: On July 15, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., observed that Employee E6, a Licensed Nurse, administered to Resident R67, the medicine, Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, and Citalopram (Celexa) 10 mg tablets, totaling Citalopram (Celexa) 30 mg.Review of physician order for Resident R67, revealed an order, dated March 27, 2025, to administer Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, by mouth every day for Generalized Anxiety Disorder. But, the Licensed Nurse, E6, did not follow the physician order as E6 administered to Resident R67, the medicine, Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, and Citalopram (Celexa) 10 mg tablets, totaling Citalopram (Celexa) 30 mg.At the time of the finding, during an interview with E6, confirmed the above findings.On July 15, 2025, at 10:10 a.m., observed that Employee E6, a Licensed Nurse, dispensed and crushed the following medicines and was going to administer to Resident R32; Clopidogrel 75 mg tablet, Senna Plus Stool Softener tablet.Review of physician order for Resident R32, revealed an order, dated October 23, 2024, to administer Clopidogrel 75 mg tablet, do not crush; and Senna Plus Stool Softener tablet, do not crush.But, the Licensed Nurse, E6, did not follow the physician order. At the time of the finding, during an interview with E6, confirmed the above findings. The facility incurred a medication error rate of 11.54%. Pa Code:211.12(d)(1)(2)(5) Nursing Services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications in accordance with physician orders for two of three residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications in accordance with physician orders for two of three residents observed during medication administration observed, resulting in a significant medication error (Residents R32, and R67).Based on observation, interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications in accordance with physician orders for two of three residents observed during medication administration observed, resulting in a significant medication error (Residents R32, and R67).Findings include:On July 15, 2025, at 9:35 a.m., observed that Employee E6, a Licensed Nurse, administered to Resident R67, the medicine, Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, and Citalopram (Celexa) 10 mg tablets, totaling Citalopram (Celexa) 30 mg.Review of physician order for Resident R67, revealed an order, dated March 27, 2025, to administer Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, by mouth every day for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.But, the Licensed Nurse, E6, did not follow the physician order as E6 administered to Resident R67, the medicine, Citalopram (Celexa) 20 mg, and Citalopram (Celexa) 10 mg tablets, totaling Citalopram (Celexa) 30 mg.At the time of the finding, during an interview with E6, confirmed the above findings.On July 15, 2025, at 10:10 a.m., observed that Employee E6, a Licensed Nurse, dispensed and crushed the following medicines and was going to administer to Resident R32; Clopidogrel 75 mg tablet, Senna Plus Stool Softener tablet.Review of physician order for Resident R32, revealed an order, dated October 23, 2024, to administer Clopidogrel 75 mg tablet, do not crush; and Senna Plus Stool Softener tablet, do not crush.But, the Licensed Nurse, E6, did not follow the physician order. At the time of the finding, during an interview with E6, confirmed the above findings.The facility incurred a medication error rate of 11.54%.Pa Code:211.12(d)(1)(2)(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

Number of residents sampled: n/aNumber of residents cited: n/a the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in accordance with professional standards of practice Based on observat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Number of residents sampled: n/aNumber of residents cited: n/a the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in accordance with professional standards of practice Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.Findings include:Review of facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Food, dated February 25, 2025, revealed that All received food product must have a Date Received' clearly marked on the package and that distributer dating is not to be followed.A tour of the Food Service Department was conducted on July 14, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. with the Assistant Foodservice Director, Employee E3, and the Food Service Director (FSD), Employee E4.Observations revealed the following food items were defrosted and dated July 14, 2025; multiple food items were observed labeled with the same date- the first date of the survey: eye of round bottom; raw ground beef; to boxes of 40- pounds chicken thighs.In an interview at approximately 10:37 a.m., the FSD, Employee E4, stated, they must've taken off the original dates and labeled with todays. The FSD acknowledged that the items confirmed that the food items mentioned above were labeled on that day specifically due to the survey. The FSD as unable to provide documentation or other evidence verifying that the food items were delivered or prepared on July 14, 2025.Continued interview confirmed that the facility failed to accurately label food items with the correct date of receipt or preparation, which is necessary to ensure proper food rotation, storage, and safety in accordance with regulatory requirements.Further observation failed to reveal a received date on the following foods: two boxes of 40-pound chicken thighs; jumbo wings; brisket; beef chuck 8/2 lbs.; two five-pound beef hot dogs; and veal.28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee
Feb 2025 7 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

Based on observation, interviews with residents, interviews with staff, review of facility documentation and clinical records, the facility failed to ensure each resident's dignity was maintained rega...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews with residents, interviews with staff, review of facility documentation and clinical records, the facility failed to ensure each resident's dignity was maintained regarding cell phone use of staff, for one out of 24 residents reviewed. (R50). Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident R50 was admitted in the facility on January 14, 2025, with diagnoses that included Permanent Atrial Fibrillation (a condition where the upper chambers of the heart (atria) beat irregularly and rapidly, and this rhythm persists for more than 12 months despite treatment attempts), and Type 2 Diabetes (chronic condition where the body does not use insulin effectively or does not produce enough insulin. Insulin is a hormone that helps glucose (sugar) from food enter cells for energy). Review of clinical records of Resident R50 revealed that the resident complained to a Licensed Nurse, Employee E9, on January 30, 2025, at 5:06 a.m., that Resident R50 could not sleep well, as Resident R50 felt that the Licensed Nurse E9's cell phone was very loud, causing unprofessional noise, and that Employee E9 did express her apology to the resident . In an interview on February 04, 2025, at 01:52 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing stated that staff were not allowed to use cellphones in resident's room . 28 Pa Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and documentation, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and documentation, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident remained free from verbal abuse, which resulted in emotional distress for one of 24 residents reviewed. (Resident R38) Findings include: Review of facility policy, Abuse Neglect or Exploitation' dated October 24, 2022, revealed Each resident is provided with a safe environment where they are not subject to mental, physical, verbal and sexual abuse. Residents shall also be protected from mistreatment, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of property. Continued review revealed; verbal abuse includes but is not limited to any use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend or disability. Review of Resident R38's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set - a mandatory periodic resident assessment tool), dated October 21, 2024, revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Presence of Cardiac Pacemaker (a small, implantable medical device that helps regulate the heart's rhythm. It works by delivering electrical impulses to the heart muscle, ensuring that the heart beats at a consistent and healthy rate), and Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen. Review of facility documentation submitted to the Department of Health on November 21, 2024, revealed that on November 21, 2024, Resident R38 stated that a Nurse Aide, Employee E10, was attempting to throw a piece of paper in the trash-can, when the piece of paper hit Resident R38. The resident stated to the Nurse Aide that the paper hit him, and the Nurse Aide began to yell at the resident and stated, : f k you [Resident R38]. The Nurse supervisor intervened. The Nurse Aide, Employee E10 was immediately placed on administrative leave. Review of facility investigation documentation on the incident revealed that on November 22, 2024, the Administrator, and Director of Nursing spoke with the Nurse Aide E10 via phone, and the Nurse Aide stated: I had a conversation with a Licensed Nurse, and asked why I was working with a certain resident, because my assignment got switched. I was upset with my assignment. I tried to throw a piece of paper in [Resident R38]'s waste basket, but it did not make it. The piece of paper hit [Resident R38], and [Resident R38] called me an idiot. I basically cursed him out, I said the F word at him. I was burned out from working so much and lost my temper, I wanted to apologize to him for it. Review of facility investigation documentation related to the incident revealed that the Nursing Home Administrator obtained statements from all staff involved, interviewed residents, completed skin check on Resident R38, reviewed the video footage of the incident. The facility substantiated the allegation of verbal abuse of Employee E10 to Resident R38. The Employee E10 was placed on administrative leave and termination. Facility provided emotional support to Resident R38, and made the psych consult. Review of Employee E10's personnel file revealed that he was hired by the facility on November 25, 2023, as a Nurse Aide. Continued review revealed that Employee E10, received certification training on the prevention of elder abuse on January 11, 2024. Interview on February 6, 2025, at 1:35 p.m., with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed the findings. 28 Pa Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa Code 201.29(c) Resident rights
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care and services for one of 24 residents reviewed (R38). Findings include: Review of Resident R38's clinical record revealed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]; diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a common lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems, in people with COPD, the lungs can get damaged or clogged with phlegm); and Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen. Review of clinical record indicated that Resident R38 was ordered on October 30, 2024, Oxygen at 2 Liters/Min, via Nasal Cannula, every Shift Continuously. On February 4, 2025, at 11:38 a.m., observed that Resident R38 was administered with Oxygen at 4 Liters/Min, via Nasal Canula., and not 2 Liters/Min, as ordered by the physician; and the same was confirmed with the Director of Nursing. 28 Pa Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of five percent or...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of five percent or greater for one of six residents observed during medication administration (Resident R51). Findings include: On February 5, 2025, 11:01 a.m., observed that Employee E5, a Licensed Nurse, administered to Resident R51, the medicine, Memantine 5 milligrams (mg) tab, one tablet, by mouth, after crushing it; when asked the Licensed Nurse to double check the medicine, the nurse stated it was Memantine 5 mg tab, one tablet. Review of physician order for Resident R51, revealed an order, dated October 10, 2024, to administer Memantine HCL,ER 7 mg Capsule, give one capsule by mouth daily for Dementia. The Licensed Nurse, E5 did not follow the physician order to administer 7 mg of Memantine HCL, ER (enteric coated). Review of literature revealed that enteric-coated medicines (ER) should not be administered crushed. On February 5, 2025, 11:01 a.m., observed that Employee E5, a Licensed Nurse, administered to Resident R51, the medicine, Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg RED Type one tab, by mouth, after crushing it; when asked the Licensed Nurse to double check the medicine, the nurse stated it was Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg RED Type one tab. Review of physician order for Resident R51, revealed an order, dated February 5, 2025, to administer Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg RED Type, Take one Tablet by mouth once Daily for Anemia. Review of literature revealed that Ferrous Sulfate Tablet should not be administered crushed. At the time of the finding, during an interview with the Director of Nursing, confirmed the above findings. The facility incurred a medication error rate of 7.14%. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c) Resident care policies 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(2)(5) Nursing Services.
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, review of facility policy and procedure and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related appropria...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related appropriate cleaning techniques for medical equipment, on three of the six Medication Administration Reviews. Findings include: Review of Facility policy last approved on January 16, 2025, on Infection Control, indicated that the staff will follow established infection control procedures such as hand washing, antiseptic technique, gloves, and isolation precautions for administration of medications, as applicable. It also indicated that all reusable equipment will be decontaminated and/or sterilized between residents at the point-of-care. On February 5, 2025, 9:26 a.m., during medication administration, to Resident R9, Employee E6, a Licensed Nurse, used the sphygmomanometer (an instrument for measuring blood pressure), without disinfecting it, which was used for checking blood pressure of other residents. At the time of the finding, Employee E6 confirmed the same. On February 5, 2025, 9:57 a.m., during medication administration, to Resident R180, Employee E7, a Registered Nurse, used the sphygmomanometer without disinfecting it, which was used for checking blood pressure of other residents. On February 5, 2025, 10:07 a.m., during medication administration, to Resident R50, Employee E7, used the sphygmomanometer without disinfecting it, which was used for checking blood pressure of other residents. At the time of the finding, E7 confirmed the same. 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 observations, interviews with staff, and a review of facility procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews with staff, and a review of facility procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: Review of policy titled, Sanitizing of Equipment revised May 2, 2022, revealed that employees must check the sanitizer for proper concentrating and record solution PPM on log. Review of policy titled, Labeling and Dating of Food revised April 3, 2023, revealed that All received food product must have a Date Received' clearly marked on the Package. Do not rely on the distributer or produce stickers for dating purposes. On large items, place the received date sticker beside the distributer sticker for easy viewing. Date and rotate items; first in, first out (FIFO). Discard food past the use-by or expiration date Use a date gun that lists the day, month and year that the item was received. Review of facility policy titles, Leftover Foods undated, revealed that Leftover foods shall be stored in appropriate refrigeration units for no more than 72 hours. Potentially hazardous foods shall be stored for no more than 24 hours. An initial tour of the main kitchen was conducted on February 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. with the Assistant Food Service Director, Employee E4, and revealed the following: Observations at 10:12 p.m. revealed kitchen staff, Employee E8, was manually washing dishware by utilizing the three-compartment sink. A test of the sanitizer concentration was conducted at 1:14 p.m. with the state surveyor and assistant food services director, Employee E4, utilizing the Quaternary Ammonium Compound test strip (QAC QR) which indicate da reading of 100 parts per million (ppm). Follow-up interview with Employee E4 confirmed the above-mentioned finding and that the concentration is inappropriate and should have correctly registered at 200 ppm. Review of the facility documentation titled, Pot Sink Temperature Sanitizing Concentration Log, for the months of February and January, 2025 revealed faulty test strips were taped to the Log. Observations of the attached test strips revealed inaccurate reading- all strips appeared white in color. Facility documentation provided by the facility failed to reveal evidence that proper concentration solution was maintained when utilizing the three-compartment sink. Interview with the AFSD, Employee E4 confirmed this finding. Observations of the main refrigerator revealed two 10-pound briskets were unlabeled and undated. Further observations revealed that burgers, lamb, pork boneless loin, and four 10-pound beef roasts were labeled with only the received date by the distributer. Further review revealed potentially hazardous food, including Buffalo Chicken breast dated January 30, 2025; two turkey breast dated January 30, 2025; cooked salami dated January 7, 2025, and 2 smoked ham dated January 30, 2025, remained refrigerated for more than 72 hours. 28 Pa. Code: 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and an interview with staff it was determined that the facility did not ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed of properly. Finding include: A tour of the Food Service Depar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and an interview with staff it was determined that the facility did not ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed of properly. Finding include: A tour of the Food Service Department was conducted on February 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. with the Assistant Food Service Director, Employee E4, and revealed the following concerns: Observation revealed a lot of debris around the compactor including used latex gloves, paper and plastic waste, and piles of leaves. Further observation revealed large puddles of oily liquid discharge from the trash compactor. An interview with the Assistant Food Service Director, Employee E4 on February 4, 2025, at approximately 10:30 a.m. confirmed the above findings. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility
May 2024 16 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of facility documentation, review of personnel records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of facility documentation, review of personnel records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure six of six employees possessed the appropriate skills and competencies to provide nursing and related care and services to assure resident safety and to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident. Further, review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed that the Employee E21 was an unlicensed staff, who provided care and services as a Registered Nurse, without verifiable educational background and registration as a nurse. This failure placed 63 residents who received care and services from Employee E21 at the facility, at risk of injury and/ or harm and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. (Employees E16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). Findings Include: Review of the Professional Nursing Law The Act of [DATE] P.L 317, No 69, revealed that Section 3. Registered Nurse, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, Use of Title and Abbreviation R.N., C.N.S. or C.R.N.A.; Credentials; Fraud.--(a) Any person who holds a license to practice professional nursing in this Commonwealth, or who is maintained on inactive status in accordance with section 11 of this act, shall have the right to use the titles nurse and registered nurse and the abbreviation R.N. No other person shall engage in the practice of professional nursing or use the titles nurse or registered nurse or the abbreviation R.N. to indicate that the person using the same is a registered nurse, except that the title nurse also may be used by a person licensed under the provisions of the act of [DATE] (1955 P.L.1211, No.376), known as the Practical Nurse Law. No person shall sell or fraudulently obtain or fraudulently furnish any nursing diploma, license, record, or registration or aid or abet therein. (b) An individual who holds a license to practice professional nursing in this Commonwealth who meets the requirements under sections 6.2 and 8.5 of this act to be a clinical nurse specialist shall have the right to use the title clinical nurse specialist and the abbreviation C.N.S. No other person shall have that right. Review of job description for Registered Nurse (RN) revised on [DATE], revealed that Education and Experience Requirements: Current state professional nursing license, one to two years' experience, geriatric/long term care experience preferred, maintain or able to obtain current CPR certification. Job accountabilities. 1. Plan, directs and provides resident care according to physician orders and the interdisciplinary plan of care. 2. Communicates changes in resident's condition in a timely fashion to include but not limited to physicians, other disciplines, the following shift, and family members. 3. Administer medications, treatments in compliance with federal, state and local laws and with the community policies and procedures. 6. Performs venipuncture to obtain blood. Further review of job description for Registered Nurse revealed that skills and competencies are required for the job accountabilities including; Administering medications and treatments, performs venipuncture to obtain blood specimens according to community practice, use of standard precautions to prevent spread of communicable disease, enforces and trains proper infection control practices to team members, exhibits knowledge of and effectively executes disaster plans and communicates changes in residents' condition in a timely fashion to include but not limited to the RN, physician other disciplines the following shift and family members. Review of a blank facility competency evaluation form indicated that the facility developed a competency evaluation program with performance indicators to ensure that the nurses including RNs and LPNs have the competency to perform necessary job accountabilities which indicated if a job function are met or not met. Review of facility documentation dated February 2, 2024, revealed that A concern was brought to this NHA (Administrator) on February 2, 2024, at approximately 10:13 am regarding a licensure investigation for an employee of Cathedral Village. Currently this employee is not working in the building. Cathedral Village has reached out to this employee for more details and clarification. Employee informed us that she will provide required documents. Further review of the documentation revealed that upon hire Employee E21, Registered Nurse, presented a registered nursing license with the name (First name Last name). This license was active on the hire date, and the licensure status was also verified and found to be in good standing. The individual (RN) remained on administrative leave while facility conducted investigation and did not submit any further documentation. Continued review of the documentation revealed that background checks including criminal history were verified under Employee E21's real name (which included a name with three parts, last name included two parts). License was verified under a similar name (but only had two parts to the name, last name with only one part) as this was the name provided on the nursing license she presented. Both Social security card and driver's license were presented with a name that has three parts. Employee 21's name on the identification document provided was different from the RN license. There was no documentation available to indicate if the facility human resource or other facility staff clarified the discrepancy in the name. A request for competency evaluation for Employee E21 was requested from the Nursing Home Administrator on [DATE] at 2:17 p.m. Facility did not provide evidence of competency evaluation for Employee E21. Review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed that the employee was offered the job as an RN with a hire date of [DATE]. Further review of the personal file revealed that the employee worked in the facility as an RN until February 1, 2024. Employee worked 30 shifts as an RN, which 23 of the 30 shift she worked independently providing all responsibilities as an RN. Continued review of Employee E21's personnel file did not include any verifiable nursing or any related education. Personnel files did not include any competency evaluation form. Review of facility documentation from [DATE], to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 administered medications to residents including anxiolytics, antihypertensive, antipsychotics, Parkinson's medications, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticoagulant, antibiotics, diuretics, beta blockers (slows heart rate, treat chest pain), anti-diabetic medication, steroids, antiviral medications, which require monitoring of side effects. Review of clinical record also revealed that Employee E21 administered resident complex resident assessment which needed specialized skills and competencies including wound care, neurological assessments, administered insulin, admission assessments, skin assessments change of condition assessments and PICC line assessments. There was no documentation available to review to determine that facility ensured Employee E21 was competent in performing these services. Review of facility documentation from [DATE], to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 provided care and services in the capacity of a registered nurse to 63 residents over 30 shifts. Employee E21 provided care to approximately 20 residents per shift. A review of the facility record revealed that the facility had one resident with PICC line/Midline catheter who received treatment and care from the staff such as dressing change, medication and fluid administration, site assessment and monitoring. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE], at 11:00 a.m. stated nursing staff provided care for residents with PICC lines and midline. A review of the facility record revealed that the facility had residents with pressure ulcers (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue, primarily caused by prolonged pressure on the skin.) and other wounds who received care and services from staff such as dressing change and wound assessment. A request for the evidence of PICC line/midline/ IV care and wound care staff competencies or annual evaluations of additional 5 selected licensed and registered nurses, Employee E16, 17, 18, 19, 20 were made to the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of nursing on April Facility was not able to provide evidence of PICC line/midline/ IV care and wound care staff competencies or annual evaluations of 5 selected licensed and registered nurses. During an interview on [DATE], at 11:30 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the nursing staff competencies or annual evaluations related to PICC line/midline/ IV care and wound care was not completed for the nursing staff in the past year. The Nursing Home Administrator also confirmed that the facility did not have a process of competency evaluation. The Nursing Home Administrator stated facility has a competency evaluation program developed to evaluate the competencies of the nurse but the facility did not implement the program for the nurses. An Immediate Jeopardy situation was identified to the Nursing Home Administrator on [DATE], at 4:00 p.m. for the facility's failure to ensure that Employee E21, (unlicensed staff who provided care and services as a Registered Nurse without verifiable educational background as a nurse) possessed appropriate skill sets and competencies to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident This failure placed 63 residents who received care and services from Employee E21 at the facility at risk of injury and or harm and resulted in an immediate jeopardy situation. The facility submitted a written plan of action on [DATE], at 9:00 p.m. and implemented the plan of action which included: Employee A was immediately removed from the schedule and placed on administrative leave. Incident reported to local police department and Department of Health in accordance to local and state laws. Legal counsel notified of multi state and identity theft investigations and agencies informed. Department of State who issues licenses will be informed on [DATE]. Legal counsel notified that state's Attorney General is involved. An electronic health record audit was completed on [DATE] by the Nursing Home Administrator or designee to review residents who may have received care or treatment from Employee E21. Current residents identified from this audit will be interviewed by a Licensed Nurse and Social Worker. This inquiry will include a statement from the individual related to medication administration, evaluations and assessments, wound care, and general care and nursing services provided was completed [DATE]. A physical head to toe skin evaluation of the residents in the assignments of Employee E21 was completed on [DATE]- [DATE]. An audit was conducted by the Human Resource Department to ensure that licensed staff have a skills competency completed and present in their employee file within the last year on [DATE]. Any licensed staff identified not to have had skills competency completed will have the competency completed prior to their next scheduled shift; all staff completed by [DATE]. An audit was completed by human resource department on current licensed nurses employed by PSL (Presbyterian Senior Living) at the community to ensure compliance with licensure verification on [DATE], no variances identified. The human resource department team members at the community were re-educated on new hire/pre- employment processes for licensed staff by the [NAME] President of Employee Relations or designee on [DATE]. The Human Resource department team members at the community were re-educated by the [NAME] President of Employee Relations or designee on- the requirement to ensure that all licensed staff have a current skill competency checklist completed at new hire during the orientation period and then annually in their employee file to ensure that all licensed staff possess competencies, education, and license as applicable to provide nursing care, all staff completed by. [DATE]. On [DATE], at 11:40 a.m. the action plan was reviewed, personell records were reviewed, interviews were conducted with staff to confirm that the in-service education was completed. Facility audits were reviewed. The Immediate Jeopardy was lifted on [DATE], at 11:40 a.m. Refer to F839 28 Pa. Code 201.14 (a)(b) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code: 201.18 (b)(1)(e)(1)(2) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(3)(5) Nursing services
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0839 (Tag F0839)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of facility documentation, review of personal records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of facility documentation, review of personal records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a professional staff possessed required nursing license in accordance with applicable state law. Review of one of six personnel files revealed that Employee E21, who was an unlicensed staff, and provided care as a Registered Nurse, to 63 residents. Employee E21 did not have a verifiable educational background and registration, as a Registered Nurse. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation to 63 residents who received care and services from Employee E21. (Employee E21). Findings Include: Review of the Professional Nursing Law The Act of [DATE] P.L 317, No 69, revealed that Section 3. Registered Nurse, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, Use of Title and Abbreviation R.N., C.N.S. or C.R.N.A.; Credentials; Fraud.--(a) Any person who holds a license to practice professional nursing in this Commonwealth, or who is maintained on inactive status in accordance with section 11 of this act, shall have the right to use the titles nurse and registered nurse and the abbreviation R.N. No other person shall engage in the practice of professional nursing or use the titles nurse or registered nurse or the abbreviation R.N. to indicate that the person using the same is a registered nurse, except that the title nurse also may be used by a person licensed under the provisions of the act of [DATE] (1955 P.L.1211, No.376), known as the Practical Nurse Law. No person shall sell or fraudulently obtain or fraudulently furnish any nursing diploma, license, record, or registration or aid or abet therein. (b) An individual who holds a license to practice professional nursing in this Commonwealth who meets the requirements under sections 6.2 and 8.5 of this act to be a clinical nurse specialist shall have the right to use the title clinical nurse specialist and the abbreviation C.N.S. No other person shall have that right. Review of job description for Registered Nurse revised on [DATE], revealed that Education and Experience Requirements: Current state professional nursing license, one to two years' experience, geriatric/long term care experience preferred, maintain or able to obtain current CPR certification. Job accountabilities. 1. Plan, directs and provides resident care according to physician orders and the interdisciplinary plan of care. 2. Communicates changes in resident's condition in a timely fashion to include but not limited to physicians, other disciplines, the following shift, and family members. 3. Administer medications, treatments in compliance with federal, state and local laws and with the community policies and procedures. 6. Performs venipuncture to obtain blood Review of facility information dated February 2, 2024, revealed that A concern was brought to this NHA(Nursing Home Administrator) on February 2, 2024, at approximately 10:13 a.m. regarding a licensure investigation .Currently this employee is not working in the building. Cathedral Village has reached out to this employee for more details and clarification. Employee informed us that she will provide required documents. Further review of the documentation revealed that upon hire on [DATE], Employee E21, presented a Registered Nurse's license with the name (First name and Last name). This license was active on the hire date, and the licensure status was also verified and found to be in good standing. Continued review of the documentation revealed that background checks including criminal history were verified under Employee E21's real name (which included first name and last name which had two parts). The Registered nurse license was verified under a similar name (but only the last name with only one part) as this was the name provided on the nursing license she presented. Both Social security card and driver's license were presented with a last name that had two parts. Employee 21's last name on the identification document provided was different from the RN license. There was no documentation available to indicate if the facility human resource or other facility staff clarified the discrepancy with Employee E21's last name. Interview with previous facility Nursing Home Administrator (Administrator at the time of the alleged incident), on [DATE], at 2:00 p.m. stated Employee E21 provided a fraudulent RN license by obtaining identity of another person with similar name. Facility did not follow up on the discrepancy between the name provided and the name on the license. Facility also did not ask the employee to provide the copy of the license issues by the state to the individual who possessed the license. Facility only verified and kept copy of the license which was available online to the public. She confirmed that the Employee E21 obtained identity of another individual who possessed a RN license with similar name and worked in the facility for 4 months and provided care to the residents including medication administration and licensed/registered nurse's assignments. Review of Employee E21's personal file revealed that the employee was offered the job as an RN with a hire date of [DATE]. Further review of the personal filed file revealed that the employee worked in the facility as an RN till February 1, 2024. Employee worked 30 shifts as an RN, which 23 of the 30 shift she worked independently providing all responsibilities as an RN. Continued review of Employee E21's personal file did not include any verifiable nursing or any related education. Review of facility documentation from [DATE], to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 administered medications to residents including anxiolytics, antihypertensive, antipsychotics, Parkinson's medications, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anticoagulant, antibiotics, diuretics, beta blockers (slows heart rate, treat chest pain), anti-diabetic medication, steroids, antiviral medications, which require monitoring of side effects. Review of clinical record also revealed that Employee E21 administered resident complex resident assessment which needed specialized skills and competencies including wound care, neurological assessments, administered insulin, admission assessments, skin assessments change of condition assessments and PICC line assessments. There was no documentation available to review to determine that facility ensured Employee E 21 was competent in performing these services. Review of facility documentation from [DATE], to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 provided care and services in the capacity of a registered nurse to 63 residents over 30 shifts. Employee E21 provided care to approximately 20 residents per shift. An Immediate Jeopardy situation was identified to the Nursing Home Administrator on [DATE], at 4:00 p.m. for the facility's failure to ensure that professional staff possessed requited licenses or registration in accordance with applicable state law. This failure resulted in Employee E21, unlicensed staff, who provided care and services as a Registered Nurse, without verifiable educational background and registration, as a nurse and placed 63 residents at the facility at risk of injury and or harm and resulted in an Immediate jeopardy situation. The facility submitted a written plan of action on [DATE], at 9:00 p.m. and implemented the plan of action which included: Employee 21 was immediately removed from the schedule and placed on administrative leave. Incident reported to local police department and Department of Health in accordance to local and state laws. Legal counsel notified of multi state and identity theft investigations and agencies informed. Department of State who issues licenses who be informed [DATE]. Legal counsel notified that state's Attorney General is involved. An audit was completed by human resource department on current licensed nurses employed by PSL at the community to ensure compliance with licensure verification as applicable according to the job description and state laws on [DATE]. All licensed staff after the initial audit have also been audited by the Human Resource department prior to employment. The policy for employee onboarding process was updated and revised on [DATE] to ensure licensed staff are appropriately licensed and educated as applicable according to the job description and state laws. The Human Resource department team members at the community were re-educated by the [NAME] President of Employee Relations or designee on the updated policy on [DATE]. All licensed staff after the initial audit which was completed on [DATE] have also been audited by the Human Resource department prior to employment. Audits started [DATE] no concerns identified and will continue to be completed biweekly according to new employee orientation schedule. Audits will continue to be going forward. On [DATE], at 11:40 a.m. the action plan was reviewed, personal records were reviewed, interviews were conducted with staff to confirm that the in-service education was completed. Facility audits were reviewed. The Immediate Jeopardy was lifted on [DATE], at 11:40 a.m. 28 Pa. Code 201.14 (a)(b) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code: 201.18 (b)(1)(e)(1)(2) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(3)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on the review of clinical records, interviews with staff, review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough and complete investigation of an alleged vio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the review of clinical records, interviews with staff, review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough and complete investigation of an alleged violation of identy theft involving 63 residents of the facility for one of six personnel files reviewed. (Employee E21) Findings Include: Review of facility policy Abuse Neglect or Exploitation revealed that It is the policy of Facility Name facilities that each resident is provided with a safe environment where they are not subject to mental, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. Residents shall also be protected from mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property. Exploitation: An act or course of conduct, including misrepresentation or failure to obtain informed consent which results in monetary, personal or other gain of profit for the perpetrator or monetary or personal loss to the resident. Misappropriation of Resident's Property: includes but is not limited to the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful (temporary or permanent) use of a resident's belongings or funds without the resident's consent. Also includes denying the resident of property for personal gain or satisfaction. Allegations of abuse, neglect, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property shall be reported immediately to the supervising nurse or, in PC/AL the administrator designee and documented on an Incident Report. Investigative skills shall be used to identify injuries, provide treatment of identified injuries, to determine circumstances that might contribute to incident. Review of facility documentation dated February 2, 2024, revealed that A concern was brought to this NHA(Administrator) on February 2, 2024, at approximately 10:13 am regarding a licensure investigation . Currently this employee is not working in the building. Cathedral Village has reached out to this employee for more details and clarification. Employee informed us that she will provide required documents. Further review of the documentation revealed that upon hire Employee E21, Registered Nurse, presented a registered nursing license with the name (First name and last name). This license was active on the hire date, and the licensure status was also verified and found to be in good standing. The individual (RN) remained on administrative leave while facility conducted investigation and did not submit any further documentation. Continued review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed background checks including criminal history were verified under Employee E21's real name (which included a name with three parts, last name included two parts). License was verified under a similar name (but only had two parts to the name, last name with only one part) as this was the name provided on the nursing license she presented. Both social security card and driver's license were presented with a name that has three parts. Employee 21 name on the identification document provided was different from the RN license. Interview with previous Facility Administrator (Administrator at the time of the alleged incident7), on April 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. stated Employee E21 provided a fraudulent RN license by obtaining identity of another person with similar name. She stated this employee was being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies for identity theft and fraud. Review of facility documentation from November 23, 2023, to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 provided care and services in the capacity of a registered nurse to 63 residents over 30 shifts. Employee E21 provided care to approximately 20 residents per shift. Continued review of the facility documentation revealed no evidence that the facility obtained statements or interviewed residents who received care and services from Employee E21. Facility investigation revealed no evidence that there were statements from staff responsible for hiring Employee E21, verifying license or completing competency evaluation for Employee E21. Interview with the Administrator on May 2, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. confirmed that the facility investigation did not include statements or interviews from residents and staff responsible for hiring Employee E21, verifying license or completing competency evaluation for Employee E21. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(1) Management.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to revise/update a care plan with a new intervention for one of eight clinical records reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to revise/update a care plan with a new intervention for one of eight clinical records reviewed. Resident R53 Findings include: Review of Resident R53's clinical record revealed that Resident R53 was admitted to the facility January 25, 2024 with diagnoses of sepsis (the body's extreme reaction to an infection), Pneumonia (inflammation and fluids in the lungs caused by bacteria, fungal, or viral infection), COPD,(Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, an inflammatory lung disease that causes airflow blockage), resp failure (a condition in which the blood does not have enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide), Alzheimer Disease (a neurodegenerative disease that destroys memory and thinking skills)Type 2 Diabetes (a chronic condition when the body does not use insulin properly and results in has high blood sugar levels), and Hypomagnesemia low level of the electrolyte magnesium. Review of Resident R53's nursing notes revealed documentation that Resident R53 was expressing belligerent, agitated, uncooperative behaviors beginning February 27, 2024, and continuing through the month of March 2024. The clinical records indicate that the physician was notified and had ordered a medication Ativan (Lorazepam, a sedative used to relieve symptoms of anxiety) to be given as needed. Further review of the nursing notes revealed that resident's behaviors were being monitored daily. Review of Resident R53's care plan dated January 25, 2023, revealed that there was no care plan developed related to Resident R53's belligerent and uncooperative behaviors. Interview with Licensed nurse, Employee E2 April 15, 2024, at 1:10 p.m, confirmed that Resident R53 has displayed newly recognized unfavorable behaviors addressed by the nursing staff and physicians. Employee E2 revealed that Resident R53's care plan had not been updated to address the behaviors. 28 Pa. Code 211.10( c) Care plan policies 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(1) Nursing services
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 review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and family interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure one resident received medication in accordance with physician...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and family interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure one resident received medication in accordance with physician orders for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident R10). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Medication Administration dated December 22, 2023, revealed resident shall receive all medications per the orders of the physician including the correct time. Interview on April 10, 2024, at 2:45 p.m. with Resident R10's family member revealed concerns that the resident does not always receive his Parkinson's (a chronic and progressive disorder that affects the nervous system and causes movement problems) medication timely. Review of Resident R10's physician orders revealed an order dated July 5, 2023, for Carbidopa-Levodopa (medication used to treat symptoms of Parkinson's disease) daily at 6AM, 10AM, 2PM, and 6PM with specific instructions DO NOT ADMINSITER ON FLEX-TIME, for Parkinson's disease. Review of Resident R10's medication administration confirmed the resident did not receive his Carbidopa-Levodopa medication timely/per physician orders on the following days/times: -February 5, 2024, given at 4:06 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -February 10, 2024, given at 12:23 p.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. -February 12, 2024, given at 4:21 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -February 15, 2024, given at 8:45 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -February 17, 2024, given at 12:01 p.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. -February 20, 2024, given at 8:57 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -February 22, 2024, given at 8:45 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -February 23, 2024, given at 4:33 a.m., 12:08 p.m., and 8:19 p.m. Missed 2:00 p.m. dose and other doses not given timely. -March 1, 2024, given at 9:03 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -March 10, 2024, given at 4:23 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -March 11, 2024, nurse staff did not administer 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. dose. -March 13, 2024, given at 4:00 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. -March 24, 2024, given at 1:17 p.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. and immediately given again at 1:19 p.m. instead of 2:00 p.m. Also given at 4:03 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. 28 Pa. Code 211.9 (a)(1) Pharmacy Services 28 Pa. Code 211.9 (d) Pharmacy Services
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 the review of clinical records, review of facility policy, observations, and interview with the staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a resident with limited range of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the review of clinical records, review of facility policy, observations, and interview with the staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate services according to the professional standards of practice for one of two residents reviewed. (Resident R14) Findings Include: Review of a facility policy Restorative care program dated February 4, 2022, revealed that Presbyterian Senior Living facilities will provide restorative services which prevent decline and/or maintain the highest practicable level of functioning in accordance with state and federal regulation. Review of physician orders for Resident R14 dated February 14, 2024, revealed an order to keep splint on left upper extremity at all times, may remove for showers. Observation of Resident R14 on April 11, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. revealed that the resident was not wearing a splint as ordered by the physician to the left upper extremity. Observation of Resident R14 on April 12, 2024, at 2:45 p.m. revealed that the revealed that the resident not wearing a splint as ordered by the physician to the left upper extremity. This observation was confirmed by Employee E15, Registered Nurse. Observation of Resident R14 on April 15, 2024, at 12:04 p.m. revealed that the resident was not wearing a splint as ordered by the physician to the left upper extremity. This observation was confirmed by Employee E14, Licensed Practical Nurse. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code: 201.18 (b)(2) Management 28 Pa. Code: 211.10 (d) Resident care policies
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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance devices necessary to prevent an avoidable ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance devices necessary to prevent an avoidable accident from occurring for one of two residents reviewed for falls (Resident R57). Findings Include: Review of Resident R57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - federally mandated resident assessment and care screening) dated January 7, 2024, revealed the resident had diagnoses of dementia (loss of cognitive functioning that interferes with daily life and activities), Parkinson's Disease (a chronic and progressive disorder that affects the nervous system and causes movement problems), history of falling, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident R57 had impairment on both sides of lower extremities and used a wheelchair for mobility device. Continued review of the MDS revealed the resident was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for sit to stand (the ability to come to a standing position from sitting in a wheelchair). Review of information submitted to the State Survey Agency on March 7, 2024, revealed on March 6, 2024, Resident R57 was being seated in the dining room by a nurse aide when Resident R57 grabbed onto a table attempting to stand from wheelchair and fell forward onto the floor. Review of facility documentation, incident report dated March 6, 2024, revealed nurse aide, Employee E11, was assisting Resident R57 in her wheelchair to her seat position in the dining room at approximately 4:50 p.m. Resident R57 grasped the dining room table while wheelchair was moving and attempted to stand at the same time, causing Resident R57 to go forward landing on the floor. Continued review of the incident report revealed the wheelchair leg rests were not checked off as being used at the time of the incident. Interview on April 12, 2024, at 1:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing, Employee E2, revealed Resident R57 had significant cognitive impairments and history of behaviors of spontaneously grabbing anything within reach and planting feet on floor while being pushed in the wheelchair. Further interview with the Director of Nursing, Employee E2, confirmed Resident R57 should always have footrests on the wheelchair while in use due to behavior of planting feet on floor. Further interview on April 12, 2024, at 1:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing, Employee E2, confirmed footrests were not in use at the time of Resident R57's fall on March 6, 2024. 28 Pa. Code 201.14 (a) Responsibility of Licensee 28 Pa. Code 211.10 (d) Resident Care Policies
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** Based on the review of clinical records, facility policy and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of clinical records, facility policy and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided consistent with physician orders and standards of practice for one of one resident reviewed for pain management. (Resident R14) Findings include: Review of Resident R14's clinical record reveled that Resident R14 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including age related osteoporosis (a bone disease that develops when bone mineral density and bone mass decreases, or when the structure and strength of bone changes) with current pathological fracture left femur, vascular dementia and anxiety. Review of MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was on a scheduled pain medication regimen and received as needed pain medication. There was no non-medication intervention for pain. It was also revealed that the resident experienced pain almost constantly and it frequently affected sleep and occasionally affected day-to day activities. Review of physician order for Resident R14 dated April 1, 2024, revealed an order for Acetaminophen (analgesic pain medication) 325 milligrams (mg) take two tablets every six hours for pain. Review of progress note for Resident R14 dated April 10, 2024, revealed that the resident complained of pain, she stated she felt the pain like she was going to have a baby. It was documented as the pain medication given. Review of Medication Administration Record for the month of April 2024 revealed no evidence that the pain medication was administered on April 10, 2024. Review of physician progress note dated April 5, 2024, revealed a medication order for Oxycodone 5 mg as needed. Review of active physician orders for Resident R14 for the month of April 2024 revealed that the Oxycodone was not included in the active medication list. Review of clinical record for Resident R14 revealed no documented reason for not following the physician recommendation of Oxycodone. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on April 15, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. confirmed that there was that no evidence that the pain medication was administered on April 10, 2024, when resident complained of pain. DON confirmed that there was no pain assessment completed when resident complained of pain. DON also confirmed that there was no documented reason for not following the physician recommendation of Oxycodone. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c) Patient care policies 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1) Nursing services
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, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with professional standards for one of three medication carts observed. (Second-floor medication cart) Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Medication Storage in the facility dated May 2018, revealed that only licensed nurses, pharmacy personnel, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications permitted to access medications. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access. Observation of the Second-floor medication cart on April 10, 2024 at 11:12 a.m. revealed the cart positioned outside the second-floor nursing office (an enclosed office surrounded by windows), was left unattended, unlocked with the sixth drawer left open to view all contents contained in the drawer. The cart directly faced two elevators on the floor. Observation on April 10, 2024, at 11:17 a.m. revealed Licensed staff, Employee E 88 exiting the nurses office approaching the unlocked medication cart. Employee E8 closed the drawers of the cart then locked the cart. Interview with Licensed staff, Employee E8 at time of observation revealed that she was inside the office assisting another resident. Employee E8 stated that she only walked away from the unlocked cart for one minute. She was coming right back to the cart. 28 Pa. Code 211. 12(d)(1) Nursing services 28 Pa. code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services
CONCERN (D)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on the review of clinical records, job descriptions, facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DO...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the review of clinical records, job descriptions, facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that proper procedures were followed in the facility related to ensuring that professional staff possessed required licenses or registration in accordance with applicable state law. That nursing staff possessed appropriate skills and competencies to provide nursing and related care and services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident. This failure resulted in Employee E21, unlicensed staff, who provided care and services as a Registered Nurse, without verifiable educational background, registration and appropriate skills and competencies, as a nurse and placed residents at the facility at risk of injury and or harm and resulted in immediate jeopardy situation. Findings Include: Review of the job description for the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) revealed that Responsible for health center operation in accordance with the established policies and procedures of Facility Name as well as in compliance with federal, state and local regulations. Responsible for ensuring quality of care, resident rights, effective team members and fiscal stability of campus. Responsible for or makes recommendations regarding the recruitment, interviewing, hiring, training, supervision and implementation corrective action health center team members. Review of the job description for the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Responsible for the organization, supervision, administration and overall management of the nursing service program. Develops and maintains nursing policies, procedures, objectives and standards of practice. Responsible for or makes recommendations regarding the recruitment, interviewing, hiring, training, supervision and implementation corrective action for nursing department personnel. Review of facility documentation dated February 2, 2024, revealed that A concern was brought to this NHA(Administrator) on February 2, 2024, at approximately 10:13 a.m. regarding a licensure investigation . Currently this employee is not working in the building. Cathedral Village has reached out to this employee for more details and clarification. Employee informed us that she will provide required documents. Further review of the documentation revealed that upon hire Employee E21, Registered Nurse, presented a registered nursing license with the name (First name and Last name). This license was active on the hire date, and the licensure status was also verified and found to be in good standing. The individual (RN) remained on administrative leave while facility conducted investigation and did not submit any further documentation. Continued review of the documentation revealed that background checks including criminal history were verified under Employee E21's real name (which included a name with three parts, last name included two parts). License was verified under a similar name (but only had two parts to the name, last name with only one part) as this was the name provided on the nursing license she presented. Both Social Security card and driver's license were presented with a name that has three parts. Employee 21 name on the identification document provided was different from the RN license. There was no documentation available to indicate if the facility human resource or other facility staff clarified the discrepancy in the name. Review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed that the employee was offered the job as an RN with a hire date of November 22, 2023. Further review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed that the employee worked in the facility as an RN untill February 1, 2024. Employee worked 30 shifts as an RN, which 23 of the 30 shift she worked independently providing all responsibilities as an RN. Based on the deficiencies identified in this report, the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing failed to fulfill essential duties and responsibilities of their position to ensure that the Federal and State guidelines and Regulations were followed, contributing to the Immediate Jeopardy situation. Refer to F726 and F839 28 Pa Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management
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 facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices during dining for one of 12 resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices during dining for one of 12 resident observed. (Employee E7) Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Infection control policy revised January 13, 2022, states the primary purpose of infection control in the facility is to maintain a sanitary environment for all personal residents, visitors, and the general public. Review of facility policy titled Nutrition and Hydration for Residents Unable to Feed Themselves, revealed that if a residents needing assistance for dining, it is then the NA (nursing assistant) job to feed them. Further review of this policy revealed that the temperature of the food should be tested by placing the employees' hand over the food to sense the heat. The policy further states that Do not touch the food to test the temperature. Observation of Resident R65 being assisted with dining on April 12, 2024, 8:35 a.m., revealed the resident was served a bowel of cream of wheat (a hot cereal). Resident R65 was observed with nurse aide, Employee E7 seated to the resident right at the table to assist resident R65 with the consumption of her meal. Nurse aide, Employee E7 was observed inserting her index finger into the resident's bowl of cream of wheat to check for the temperature, then wiped hand in napkin. Nurse aide, Employee E7 was then observed pouring ice cubes into the cereal. Interview with Nurse aide, Employee E7 at time of observation stated that she placed her hand over the bowel to indicate the temperature of it. Employee E was instructed by dietary staff to wash her hands, apply gloves and resident was given a new bowel of cereal. 28 Pa. Code 211.6 (f) Dietary services
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 the review of clinical records, interviews with staff, review of employees' personnel files and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to promote resident right...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the review of clinical records, interviews with staff, review of employees' personnel files and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to promote resident rights related to the communication to residents of an alleged violation reported to the facility which affected the safety and wellbeing of 63 residents at the facility for one of six personnel files reviewed. (Employee E21) Findings Include: Review of facility policy Abuse Neglect or Exploitation revealed that It is the policy of Facility Name facilities that each resident is provided with a safe environment where they are not subject to mental, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. Residents shall also be protected from mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property. Exploitation: An act or course of conduct, including misrepresentation or failure to obtain informed consent which results in monetary, personal or other gain of profit for the perpetrator or monetary or personal loss to the resident. Misappropriation of Resident's Property: Includes but is not limited to the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful (temporary or permanent) use of a resident's belongings or funds without the resident's consent. Also includes denying the resident of property for personal gain or satisfaction. Residents or residents' representatives shall be informed of all reports filed on the residents' behalf regarding abuse, neglect and/or misappropriation unless informing the resident would put the resident at risk of serious harm, or the resident, representative for either a competent or incompetent resident. Substantiated incidents require the Administrator or designee to: 1. Report to the licensing/certifying authorities, any actions by a court of law, which would indicate an employee is unfit for service. 2. Analyze the occurrences to determine what changes in policy, procedure or practice that may be needed to prevent further occurrences. Review of facility documentation dated February 2, 2024, revealed that A concern was brought to this NHA(Administrator) on February 2, 2024, at approximately 10:13 a.m. regarding a licensure investigation . Currently this employee is not working in the building. Cathedral Village has reached out to this employee for more details and clarification. Employee informed us that she will provide required documents. Further review of Employee E21's personnel file revealed that upon hire Employee E21, Registered Nurse, presented a registered nursing license with the name (First name and last name). This license was active on the hire date, and the licensure status was also verified and found to be in good standing. The individual (RN) remained on administrative leave while facility conducted investigation and did not submit any further documentation. Continued review of the documentation revealed that background checks including criminal history were verified under Employee E21's real name (which included a name with three parts, last name included two parts). License was verified under a similar name (but only had two parts to the name, last name with only one part) as this was the name provided on the nursing license she presented. Both Social security card and driver's license were presented with a name that has three parts. Employee 21 name on the identification document provided was different from the RN license. Interview with previous Facility Administrator (Administrator at the time of the alleged incident), on April 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. stated Employee E21 provided a fraudulent RN license by obtaining identity of another person with similar name. She stated this employee was being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies for identity theft and fraud. Review of facility documentation from November 23, 2023, to February 24, 2024, revealed that Employee E21 provided care and services in the capacity of a registered nurse to 63 residents over 30 shifts. Employee E21 provided care to approximately 20 residents per shift. Interview with the Administrator on May 2, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. stated facility did not inform resident or resident representative of the investigation related to Employee E21 who provided medications and treatments to the resident while employed by the facility. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code: 201.29(b)(c) Resident rights
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records, and resident and family interviews, it was determined that the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records, and resident and family interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure dependent resident received assistance with personal hygiene for six of 31 residents reviewed (Resident R2, R8, R32, R60, R1, and R10). Findings Include: Review of Resident R10's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS - federally mandated resident assessment and care screening) dated April 1, 2024, revealed the resident was dependent (helper does all of the effort) for shower/bathing and personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident was cognitively impaired. Review of Resident R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance (helper lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs) with shower/bathing. Review of Resident R8's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with shower/bathing. Review of Resident R32's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance (helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs) with shower/bathing. Review of Resident R60's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with shower/bathing. Review of Resident R1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with shower/bathing. Interview on April 10, 2024, at 12:20 p.m. with Resident R10's family member revealed concerns that the resident is not getting routine showers. Further interview with the family member revealed Resident R10 was supposed to have a shower on Tuesday night, April 9, 2024, but was unsure because the resident's hair looked dirty. Observations on April 10, 2024, at 1:05 p.m. revealed Resident R10 was in the dining room having lunch. Observations confirmed Resident R10's hair looked unkept and dirty. Interview on April 10, 2024, at 2:45 p.m. with another family member of Resident R10 revealed if Resident R10 misses a shower on the scheduled shower day, the resident needs to wait until the next scheduled shower day to be bathed. Interviews with alert and oriented Resident's R2, R8, R32, R60, R1 during the group meeting on April 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. revealed sufficient staff is not available, and resident's will subsequently not be provided showers due to lack of staff. Via email communication on April 15, 2024, at 12:10 p.m. with the Nursing Home Administrator regarding shower/bathing documentation revealed the X's on the shower sheet represent the days that the shower are not scheduled, when you see a number . that is the date that the aides documented. Review of Resident R10's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Tuesday and Friday nights. Further review of Resident R10's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed the last time nursing staff documented giving a shower was March 1, 2024. Review of Resident R2's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Further review of Resident R2's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed only one documented shower on March 23, 2024. No documented showers given for April 2024. Review of Resident R8's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Wednesday and Saturday evenings. Further review of Resident R8's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed the only documented showers given were March 20, March 23, and April 3, 2024. Review of Resident R32's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Tuesday and Friday mornings. Further review of Resident R32's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed only one documented shower on March 1, 2024. No documented showers given for April 2024. Review of Resident R60's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Monday and Thursday nights. Further review of Resident R60's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed no documented showers given for March and April 2024. Review of Resident R1's shower sheet revealed the resident was scheduled for bathing on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Further review of Resident R1's March and April 2024 shower sheets revealed no documented showers given for March and April 2024. 28 Pa. Code 201.14 (a) Responsibility of Licensee 28 Pa. Code 211.10 (d) Resident Care Policies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility documentation, observations, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide meals in accordance with resident preferences for two of two nursing units...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation, observations, and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide meals in accordance with resident preferences for two of two nursing units observed (Second and Third Floor Nursing Units). Findings Include: Review of facility documentation Meal Service Times revealed breakfast is served between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and lunch is served between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Interview during the initial tour of the kitchen on April 10, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. with the Food Service Director, Employee E5, revealed each dining room on the 2nd and 3rd floor nursing units have small kitchens that are equipped with steam tables for serving the dining rooms and residents who eat in their rooms. Interviews during the group meeting on April 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. with alert and oriented residents R2, R59, R8, R32, R60, and R1 revealed residents need to wait long periods of time in the dining room to be served a meal. Residents reported going to the dining room when lunch is supposed to start at 12:00 p.m. but can wait up to 45 minutes to be served. Observations on April 11, 2024, at 12:17 p.m. in the 3rd floor dining room revealed approximately nine residents were waiting to be served lunch (Resident R11, R8, R24, R55, R9, R63, R26, R69, and R53). Observations on April 11, 2024, at 12:35 p.m. in the 2nd floor dining room revealed approximately 10-15 residents who were sitting in the dining room were still not served. Observations revealed the dietary employee who was responsible for plating the meals from the steam table was still taking orders from the residents at 12:35 p.m. and had not yet began plating resident lunches for the dining room. Interview on April 11, 2024, at 12:35 p.m. with the Food Service Director, Employee E5, confirmed Dietary Employee who was responsible for plating resident meals was also taking resident orders. Follow-up observations on April 11, 2024, at 12:40 p.m. in the 3rd floor dining room revealed Residents R11 was just served at 12:40 p.m. and the other residents (Resident R8, R24, R55, R9, R63, R26, R69, and R53) were still not served. Resident R24 kept asking staff where her sandwich was. Observations on April 12, 2024, revealed the following residents were served breakfast after 9:00 a.m. Resident R51 and R48 were served at 9:25 a.m., Resident R17 was served breakfast at 9:31 a.m., Resident R47 was served breakfast at 9:34 a.m. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on a review of facility documentation, facility policies and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective antibiotic stewardship program that includes a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of facility documentation, facility policies and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective antibiotic stewardship program that includes a system to effectively monitor antibiotic usage for three of four months of antibiotic stewardship program data reviewed. (January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Antibiotic Stewardship dated May 31, 2023, revealed the The antibiotic stewardship policy is a set of commitments and actions designed to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use such as the threat of antibiotic resistance. 4. Monitoring measures for antibiotics use and outcomes will be implemented and reported through the community QUAPI process. 9. Data will be monitored monthly to review the number of new antibiotics ordered to determine if criteria were met. Review of facility documentation for the month of January 2024 revealed that the facility used 13 antibiotics for 19 residents. Further review of facility documentation revealed that a review of antibiotic usage for appropriateness or if the usage criteria were met was not completed for the antibiotics prescribed according to facility antibiotic stewardship program. Review of facility documentation for the month of February 2024 revealed that the facility used 9 antibiotics for 10 residents. Further review of facility documentation revealed that a review of antibiotic usage for appropriateness or if the usage criteria were met was not completed for the antibiotics prescribed according to facility antibiotic stewardship program. Review of facility documentation for the month of March 2024 revealed that the facility used 17 antibiotics for 24 residents. Further review of facility documentation revealed that a review of antibiotic usage for appropriateness or if the usage criteria were met was not completed for the antibiotics prescribed according to facility antibiotic stewardship program. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on April 15, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. confirmed that a review of antibiotic usage for appropriateness or if the usage criteria were met was not completed for the antibiotics prescribed according to facility antibiotic stewardship program. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(d) Resident care policies. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of facility documentation, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was served at palatable temperatures for two...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility documentation, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was served at palatable temperatures for two of two nursing units observed (second and third floor nursing units). Findings Include: Interview during the initial tour of the kitchen on April 10, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. with the Food Service Director, Employee E5, revealed each dining room on the 2nd and 3rd floor nursing units have small kitchens that are equipped with steam tables for serving the dining rooms and residents who eat in their rooms. Review of dining committee notes for the 3rd floor nursing unit, dated March 20, 2024, revealed resident concerns included cold food. Interviews during the group meeting on April 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. with alert and oriented Residents R2, R59, R8, R32, R60, and R1 revealed food is often cold both when eating in the dining room and when served in rooms. Interview on April 11, 2024, at 12:20 p.m. with the Food Service Director, Employee E5, revealed dietary staff are responsible for checking temperatures the of food items held on the steam tables in the 2nd and 3rd floor dining rooms before beginning meal service. Review of facility documentation Daily Temperature Checklist revealed temperature standards for the entrée is 155-165 degrees Fahrenheit and vegetable is 145-155 degrees Fahrenheit. A test tray was made on April 11, 2024, at 12:23 p.m. with food plated directly from the steam table in the 3rd floor dining room with the Food Service Director, Employee E5. Temperatures taken by the Food Service Director, Employee E5, revealed the breaded veal was 127 degrees Fahrenheit and the broccoli was 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Further, the surveyor tasted the food items which confirmed temperatures were not palatable for temperature. On April 11, 2024, at 12:35 p.m. in the 2nd floor dining room the Food Service Director, Employee E5, temped the food items directly on the steam table which revealed the veal was 123 degrees Fahrenheit and the broccoli was 103 degrees Fahrenheit. Observations on April 12, 2024, at 9:04 a.m. revealed a stainless-steel tray delivery cart on the 2nd floor nursing unit in front of the nurse's station with about 14 breakfast trays waiting to be passed to residents, including Resident R17. Follow-up observations on April 12, 2024, at 9:28 a.m. revealed Resident R17 was just served her breakfast tray. Interview on April 12, 2024, at 9:31 a.m. with Resident R17 revealed the cream of wheat (hot breakfast cereal) was lukewarm and that the resident has been eating cold food for a long time. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management
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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $219,489 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $219,489 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Pennsylvania. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 16/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Cathedral Village's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Cathedral Village 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 Cathedral Village Staffed?

CMS rates Cathedral Village's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 58%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Cathedral Village?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at Cathedral Village during 2024 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 25 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Cathedral Village?

Cathedral Village is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 82 certified beds and approximately 68 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania.

How Does Cathedral Village Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, Cathedral Village's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cathedral Village?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Cathedral Village Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Cathedral Village has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). 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 Cathedral Village Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Cathedral Village is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 58%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Cathedral Village Ever Fined?

Cathedral Village has been fined $219,489 across 3 penalty actions. This is 6.2x the Pennsylvania average of $35,274. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Cathedral Village on Any Federal Watch List?

Cathedral Village 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.