Cathedral Village
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
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
- In Pennsylvania
- #276/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- 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.
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
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
13pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 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.
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.