Philadelphia Protestant Home
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Philadelphia Protestant Home has received a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #216 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #10 out of 46 in Philadelphia County, showing it has some strong local competition. However, the facility’s trend is concerning as issues have increased from 3 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a low turnover rate of 13%, much lower than the state average of 46%, although RN coverage is only average. Notably, the facility has no fines on record, which is a positive sign, but there are some areas of concern, including inadequate food storage practices, lack of accessible grievance forms for residents, and issues with binding arbitration agreements not meeting regulatory requirements.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #216/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 13% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 35 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (13%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (13%)
35 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among Pennsylvania's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of clinical records, interview with staff and review of facility provided documentation, it was determined facility failed to ensure that one of 23 residents reviewed exercised right t...
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 policies, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility fai...
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 and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment for one of three nursing units reviewed. (Second floor)
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility provided documentation and interview with staff, it was determined that facility did not ensure two of seven nurse aides completed annual required 12-hour in-services (Empl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a resident group interview, resident interview, review of facility policy and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the grievance forms we...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews with staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that PRN (as needed) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days without do...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0847
(Tag F0847)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on the review of facility documentation, review of CMS regulations §483.70(n), interview with the staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the binding arbitration ag...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
8 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
Based on review of clinical records, facility policies and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of one incident of residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated emergency transf...
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, clinical record review, facility policy review, drug information review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the medication error...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, review of clinical records, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess the need for specialized occupational therapy se...
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, facility documentation, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate tracking and surveillance of infection for seven of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
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
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received pn...
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 policies, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for f...
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
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- • 13% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 35 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Philadelphia Protestant Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Philadelphia Protestant Home an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Philadelphia Protestant Home Staffed?
CMS rates Philadelphia Protestant Home's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 13%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Philadelphia Protestant Home?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Philadelphia Protestant Home during 2023 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Philadelphia Protestant Home?
Philadelphia Protestant 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 116 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania.
How Does Philadelphia Protestant Home Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Protestant Home's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (13%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Philadelphia Protestant 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 Philadelphia Protestant Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Philadelphia Protestant 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Philadelphia Protestant Home Stick Around?
Staff at Philadelphia Protestant Home tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 13%, the facility is 32 percentage points below the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 17%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Philadelphia Protestant Home Ever Fined?
Philadelphia Protestant 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 Philadelphia Protestant Home on Any Federal Watch List?
Philadelphia Protestant 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.