FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Friendship Village of South HI has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #40 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 52 in Allegheny County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility's performance is stable, with the same number of concerns reported in both 2023 and 2024. Staffing is rated average, with a turnover rate of 48%, which is similar to the state average, but the facility has no reported fines, a positive sign. However, there are notable weaknesses, including issues with infection control related to Legionella management and a failure to investigate injuries of unknown origin, which raises concerns about resident safety and oversight.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #40/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on a review of facility documents, information from the State Ombudsman Office and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman Office of resident tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
2 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 review of facility policy, clinical records, facility investigation reports, a progress note and staff interviews, it w...
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
Based on review of facility policies, review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for Legionella (bacterium that causes Legionnaires Disease found in pipes and heating systems) Control, the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment that ensured personal privacy for one of one resident during a wound c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 provide a cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to notify residents/resident representatives of their right to file anonymous grievances...
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, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to update a car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 and records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to monit...
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 a review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to make certain medications were stored in a safe and secure manner for one of three medication carts (Pin...
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 facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection control practices during a dressing change for one of one resident observed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a facility observations and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed maintain a nursing unit refrigerator-freezer in safe operating condition on one of three units (Pine Hall). ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, personnel records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to complete dementia management upon hire for one out of six personnel files (RN Em...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to investigate an injuries of unknown origin for three of nine...
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+ (85/100). 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.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Friendship Village Of South Hi's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI 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 Friendship Village Of South Hi Staffed?
CMS rates FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 61%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Friendship Village Of South Hi?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI during 2022 to 2024. These included: 14 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Friendship Village Of South Hi?
FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 89 certified beds and approximately 78 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania.
How Does Friendship Village Of South Hi Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Friendship Village Of South Hi?
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 Friendship Village Of South Hi Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI 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 5-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 Friendship Village Of South Hi Stick Around?
FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 Friendship Village Of South Hi Ever Fined?
FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI 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 Friendship Village Of South Hi on Any Federal Watch List?
FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF SOUTH HI 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.