DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Delaware Valley Veteran's Home has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option, solidly above average. It ranks #28 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and is the best-rated facility in Philadelphia County. The facility is improving, with the number of issues found decreasing from 11 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 31%, which is significantly lower than the state average. However, the home has faced some concerns, including a critical incident where a resident went missing for nearly two hours during an outing due to inadequate supervision, which poses serious safety risks. Additionally, there were concerns about the lack of proper supervision for outdoor activities and the need for culturally competent care for residents with trauma histories. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #28/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $10,036 in fines. Higher than 100% of Pennsylvania facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 49 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
15pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, observations, facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of clinical record, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the proper care of a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter for one of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interviews, meal tray observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide palatable, appealing and attractive meals during lunch for one of one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, review of facility's menu and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to meet resident's food preference for three of three residents reviewed. (Residents R...
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, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a water management program for the prevention, detection, and control of water...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, observation and staff interviews, it was determined that t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
6 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and documentation, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility fa...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store drug...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that garbage was disposed of properly.
Findings include:
Observation in the receiving area and th...
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 a review of clinical records, facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing failed to effectively manage ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide culturally competent, trauma informed care in accordance with professional sta...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined to ensure sufficient staff was available to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to meet the daily...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0840
(Tag F0840)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the review of facility policy, facility documentation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that services which was not offered by the facility was provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on select facility policy, CDC guidelines, guidelines form the Pennsylvania Department of Health, observations, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, facility documentation review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of 32 residents reviewed. (Resident R81)....
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 31% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $10,036 in fines. Above average for Pennsylvania. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home Staffed?
CMS rates DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 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 Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home?
DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 171 certified beds and approximately 158 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania.
How Does Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home?
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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-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 Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home Stick Around?
DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home Ever Fined?
DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME has been fined $10,036 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,179. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Delaware Valley Veteran'S Home on Any Federal Watch List?
DELAWARE VALLEY VETERAN'S HOME 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.