GERMANTOWN HOME
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Families considering Germantown Home in Philadelphia will find a facility with a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not without its shortcomings. It ranks #288 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #14 out of 46 in Philadelphia County, meaning only a few local options are better. The facility's performance trend is stable, with 6 issues reported in both 2024 and 2025, suggesting consistent challenges. Staffing is a strong point, rated 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average, but there is concerning RN coverage, as it falls below 81% of Pennsylvania facilities. While there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, there were specific incidents noted during inspections, such as failing to create proper care plans for residents with wounds and not ensuring that urinary catheter bags were positioned correctly to prevent infection risks. Overall, while Germantown Home has some strengths, families should weigh these against the identified weaknesses when making their decision.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #288/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 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
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review revealed that the facility failed to ensure that a rational was documented related to pharmacy r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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, review of facility policy, and interview with staff, it was determined that t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**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
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, review of policies, and interview with staff, it was determined that facility did not ensure to provide and/or document the provision of pertinent information rega...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, review of policies, and interview with staff, it was determined that facility did not ensure to provide and/or document the provision of pertinent information rega...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation and interview with staff, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely noti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, and interview with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility did no...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observation, clinical record review, and interview with staff and residents, it was determin...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observation, clinical record review and interview with staff and residents, it was determine...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observation, clinical record review and interview with staff and residents, it was determine...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews and a review of employee credentials, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified director of food and nutrition services (Employees E9).
Findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that facility failed prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- • 38% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Germantown Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GERMANTOWN HOME 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 Germantown Home Staffed?
CMS rates GERMANTOWN HOME's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Germantown Home?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at GERMANTOWN HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Germantown Home?
GERMANTOWN HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 180 certified beds and approximately 173 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania.
How Does Germantown Home Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, GERMANTOWN HOME's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Germantown Home?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Germantown Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GERMANTOWN HOME has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Germantown Home Stick Around?
GERMANTOWN HOME has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Germantown Home Ever Fined?
GERMANTOWN HOME has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Germantown Home on Any Federal Watch List?
GERMANTOWN 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.