MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Manatawny Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #76 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 20 in Chester County, suggesting only four local options are better. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 7 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a concern with a 57% turnover rate, above the state average, and while RN coverage is average, the presence of experienced staff is crucial for resident care. Notably, the facility has incurred $44,985 in fines, which is higher than 82% of Pennsylvania facilities, indicating ongoing compliance challenges. Specific incidents include failures to properly monitor and treat pressure ulcers, resulting in harm to residents, which is a significant concern for families considering care options. Overall, while there are strengths in its ratings and improving trend, the facility's staffing issues and serious incidents related to resident care warrant careful consideration.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #76/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $44,985 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
11pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
9 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
4 deficiencies
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 observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe and homelike environmen...
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
Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of 25 residents reviewed (Residents 22 and 108).
Findin...
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
Based upon clinical record review, it was determined the facility failed to revise a care plan to reflect changes in nutrition for a resident with weight loss for one of 25 residents reviewed (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that necessary treatments were provided for two of five residents with a pressure ulcer (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
7 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to develop baseline care plans for two...
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
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide care and services for pressure ulcer for one of six residents reviewed. (Resident 21)
Findings Inc...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records and facility documentation, and interviews with residents and staff, it was de...
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
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately monitor and address weight loss in a timely manner for two of ...
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 clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the pharmacy provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered for one of 24 residents reviewed. (Resident 21)
Findings Include:
Rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to report results of laboratory studies to the physician for one of 24 residents reviewed. (Resident 21)
Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, facility policy and procedure, hospital record reviews and staff interview, it was determined the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
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 interviews with the staff it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician ord...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, facility policy and procedure review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent pressure ulcers for three of 10 re...
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 clinical records, facility policies, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to...
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 clinical record review, facility documentation review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to prevent accident for two of 32 residents reviewed (Residents 12 and 85)
Find...
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
Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain the resident's admission weight, notify the physician an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary psychological services to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psych...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the review facility's documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the designated Infection Preventionist(s) completed specialized training in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy and procedure review, employee personnel file reviews and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to obtain criminal background checks and perform reference checks before...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were available that were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, Facility policies, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an accurate monthly medication regimen review and appropriate physici...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $44,985 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Staffed?
CMS rates MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 20 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing?
MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 MORDECHAI WEISZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 133 certified beds and approximately 123 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in POTTSTOWN, Pennsylvania.
How Does Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.
Is Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Stick Around?
Staff turnover at MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Ever Fined?
MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING has been fined $44,985 across 2 penalty actions. The Pennsylvania average is $33,529. 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 Manatawny Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?
MANATAWNY CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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.