Providence Point Healthcare Residence
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Providence Point Healthcare Residence in Pittsburgh has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families seeking care, though there are areas for improvement. It ranks #217 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state, and #10 out of 52 in Allegheny County, meaning only nine local options are better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, having increased from 3 issues in 2024 to 11 in 2025, which raises concerns. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, lower than the state average, while RN coverage is better than 97% of facilities, ensuring residents receive attentive care. On the downside, the facility has had $13,575 in fines, which is higher than 82% of similar facilities, indicating potential compliance issues, and specific incidents include failing to provide advance directives and not completing required assessments for several residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #217/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $13,575 in fines. Higher than 96% of Pennsylvania facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 106 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Pennsylvania nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain call light tubes were in reach for one of four residents with lim...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
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 resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
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, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services documents, facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interv...
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 a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to devel...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of manufacturer instructions, facility policy, facility documentation and staff interviews, it was determined th...
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 policy, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ...
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 review of facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility to make certain that medical supplies were properly stored and/or disposed of on one of two n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual (RAI) and clinical records, and staff interview, it was dete...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0940
(Tag F0940)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop, implement...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
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 a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 deficiencies
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, resident clinical records, documentation provided by the facility and staff interview, it ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, facility documents, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility documents and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to...
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 review of facility policies, review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for Legionella (bacterium that caus...
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.
- • 39% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $13,575 in fines. Above average for Pennsylvania. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Providence Point Healthcare Residence's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Providence Point Healthcare Residence 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 Providence Point Healthcare Residence Staffed?
CMS rates Providence Point Healthcare Residence's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Providence Point Healthcare Residence?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Providence Point Healthcare Residence during 2023 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Providence Point Healthcare Residence?
Providence Point Healthcare Residence 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 42 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania.
How Does Providence Point Healthcare Residence Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, Providence Point Healthcare Residence's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Providence Point Healthcare Residence?
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 Providence Point Healthcare Residence Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Providence Point Healthcare Residence 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 Providence Point Healthcare Residence Stick Around?
Providence Point Healthcare Residence has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Providence Point Healthcare Residence Ever Fined?
Providence Point Healthcare Residence has been fined $13,575 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,215. 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 Providence Point Healthcare Residence on Any Federal Watch List?
Providence Point Healthcare Residence 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.