SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES

207 WEST SUMMIT AVENUE, SOUDERTON, PA 18964 (215) 723-9881
Non profit - Corporation 71 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#122 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: March 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Souderton Mennonite Homes has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating a high level of quality and care, which means it is highly recommended for families seeking nursing home options. It ranks #122 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of nursing homes statewide, and #15 out of 58 in Montgomery County, suggesting only 14 local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from four in 2024 to three in 2025, though it still has some concerns to address. Staffing is a strength with a perfect 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 32%, which is lower than the state average of 46%, meaning staff are more stable and familiar with the residents. Notably, there have been no fines recorded, and they provide more RN coverage than 88% of Pennsylvania facilities, which is crucial for catching health issues early. However, there are some weaknesses. Recent inspections found that the facility failed to follow a physician's orders for one resident's daily weight monitoring, which could lead to serious health risks. Additionally, another resident who required special dining equipment did not receive the necessary adaptive tools during meals, potentially impacting their nutrition. Lastly, there was a failure to implement bowel management protocols for another resident, which could lead to complications. Balancing these strengths and weaknesses is important for families considering Souderton Mennonite Homes for their loved ones.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#122/653
Top 18%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 73 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
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 32%

14pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

Mar 2025 3 deficiencies
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

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 24) Findings include: Clinic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 24) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 24 had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure and hypertension. A physician's order dated May 6, 2024, directed staff to weigh the resident daily and to call cardiology with a three pound weight gain in one day or a five pound weight gain in one week. Review of Resident 24's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February and March 2025, revealed that Resident 24 had more than a three pound weight gain on February 2, 18, 24, and 26, 2025, and March 3 and 16, 2025. There was no documented evidence to support that the cardiologist was notified of the weight gain on the aforementioned dates. Further review of Resident 24's clinical record revealed on January 24, 2025, the physician ordered staff to administer a medication (carvedilol) twice a day for hypertension. Staff were not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was less than 110 millimeters mercury (mm/Hg) or if the resident's heart rate was less than 60. Review of the MAR for February and March 2025 revealed that staff administered the medication on February 23 and 24, 2025, and March 17, 2025, when Resident 24's SBP was less than the ordered parameters. In an interview on March 20, 2025, at 9:37 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the cardiologist was notified of the weight gain and the medication was administered outside of the ordered parameters. CFR(s) 483.25 Quality of Care Previously cited 4/4/24 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment was provided to one of two sampled residents who require...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adaptive equipment was provided to one of two sampled residents who required adaptive equipment with meals. (Resident 6) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 6 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dementia, and dysphagia. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident was at risk for nutrition problems with an intervention for adaptive equipment. The intervention was for staff to provide a partitioned scoop dish on blue Dycem (non-slip material that prevents objects from slipping), and weighted utensils for all meals. On March 18, 2025, from 12:15 p.m. through 12:30 p.m., and on March 19, 2025, from 12:10 p.m. through 12:20 p.m., Resident 6 was observed in the dining room without a partitioned scoop dish, blue Dycem, and weighted utensils. In an interview on March 20, 2025, at 9:27 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident should have received the partitioned scoop dish, blue Dycem, and weighted utensils. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a reference check and verify a professional license/registration sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a reference check and verify a professional license/registration status prior to the start of employment for one of five newly hired employees. (E2) Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled, Resident Abuse or Suspected Abuse, dated January 8, 2025, revealed that the facility was to conduct screenings for all potential hires. This included license/registration verification. A review of the facility policy entitled, Employment Procedures 2.07, dated January 8, 2025, revealed that the facility was to check references for all potential hires. Employee 2 (E2) had been working in the facility as a Registered Nurse since January 21, 2025, a reference check was not completed until March 3, 2025, and an inquiry to the state licensure board was not completed until March 19, 2025. In an interview on March 20, 2025, at 11:12 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documented evidence that a reference check and the license/registry verification were done prior to start of employment. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.19(3) Personnel policies and procedures.
Apr 2024 4 deficiencies
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 facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to impl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders and follow bowel protocol for one of 18 sampled residents. (Resident 44) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Bowel Management, last reviewed January 8, 2024, revealed that staff on all shifts were to monitor a resident's bowel movements and take action to prevent complications of constipation and/or fecal impaction. The resident's bowel movements were to be charted daily in the clinical record. Staff were to administer an oral laxative for no bowel movement in nine shifts. If ineffective, staff were to administer a suppository the following shift. If the suppository was ineffective, staff were to administer an enema on the following shift. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 44 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired. Review of the care plan revealed the resident had a history of constipation and staff were to administer bowel protocol medications as needed. Review of physician's orders dated February 10, 2024, directed staff to administer magnesium hydroxide suspension (an oral laxative) as needed for no bowel movement in nine nursing shifts, a Dulcolax suppository as needed if an oral laxative was ineffective, and an enema as needed if the Dulcolax suppository was ineffective. An additional physician's order dated February 19, 2024, directed staff to administer a bisacodyl suppository as needed for constipation. Review of documentation and medication administration records for March and April 2024, revealed no evidence that the resident had a bowel movement March 5 through 8 (12 shifts), March 10 through 13 (12 shifts), March 21 through 25 (15 shifts), and March 28 through April 2 (18 shifts). There was no documentation to support that physician's orders and facility policy for bowel management were implemented to address Resident 44's constipation/lack of bowel movements on the identified dates/shifts. In an interview on April 4, 2024, at 11:07 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that staff did not implement the physician's orders or follow bowel protocol per the facility policy. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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 clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that cat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that catheter care and services were consistently provided for one of one sampled residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. (Resident 47) Findings included: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate), urinary tract infection, and retention of urine. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had no cognitive impairment and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident 47's current care plan revealed that the resident had an indwelling catheter with an intervention to follow up with the urologist. In an interview on April 2, 2024, at 12:01 p.m., Resident 47 stated staff did not assist him consistently with catheter care. On November 22 and 27, 2023, the nurse practitioner documented that the resident was to have follow-up with the urologist and that staff was to assist the resident with catheter care every shift. On February 14, 2024, the nurse practitioner again documented that the resident was to follow-up with the urologist for further evaluation. Review of the catheter care task documentation from March 5, 2025 through April 3, 2024, revealed three shifts with missing documentation, 18 shifts documented as not applicable, and one shift documented as not completed. There was also a lack of documentation to support that Resident 47 had been seen by the urologist in a timely manner as recommended by the nurse practitioner. In an interview on April 4, 2024, at 11:22 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documentation to support the urinary catheter care had been consistently completed and that Resident 47 had not seen by a urologist in a timely manner. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
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 clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately monitor and asses...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 adequately monitor and assess significant weight loss for one of two sampled residents at risk for weight loss. (Resident 2) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, depression, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was cognitively impaired. Review of mini nutrition assessments dated December 28, 2023, and March 27, 2024, indicated that the resident was at risk for malnutrition. On October 5, 2023, the resident weighed 175.3 pounds (lbs.). On November 6, 2023, the resident weighed 164.2 lbs., which reflected a significant weight loss of 6.3%. There was no evidence that a dietitian assessed or addressed the significant weight loss until December 1, 2023. On January 8, 2024, the resident weighed 167.6 lbs. On February 5, 2024, the resident weighed 156.4 lbs., which reflected a significant weight loss of 6.6%. There was no evidence that a dietitian assessed or addressed the significant weight loss until February 19, 2024. In an interview on April 4, 2024, at 10:16 a.m., Dietitian 1 confirmed that the significant weight loss was not assessed or addressed in a timely manner. 28 Pa Code 211.12(3)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0575 (Tag F0575)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post pertinent names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Office of the State/County Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post pertinent names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Office of the State/County Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program in an area that was accessible to all residents and resident representatives. Findings include: Observation on the first day of the survey, April 2, 2024, revealed that the information to contact the Ombudsman was posted on the upper/top part of a bulletin board on the way to the main dining room on the nursing unit. The information was not at eye level nor was it accessible at eye level for someone who utilized a wheelchair. During a group interview on April 3, 2024, at 11:05 a.m., five of five alert and oriented residents, R3, R14, R40, R46 and R47, stated that they were aware that there was an Ombudsman Program: however, they did not know where the information was regarding how to contact the Ombudsman if they needed assistance from that particular advocacy agency. In addition, Resident 14 stated that she had outdated information about the Ombudsman and did not know who the current Ombudsman was for the facility. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(d) Management.
May 2023 1 deficiency
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 observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility environment remained free of accident hazards in the shower room. (Spa 3665) Findings include: During multi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility environment remained free of accident hazards in the shower room. (Spa 3665) Findings include: During multiple observations of the shower room from May 16, 2023, at 11:50 a.m., to May 17, 2023, at 12:55 p.m., a cabinet was unlocked and contained a package of disposable razors, shaving cream, deodorant, barrier cream, body lotion, anti-itch cream, a hairdryer and toothpaste. There was no locking mechanism on the door to the shower room to prevent a resident from entering the room. In an interview on May 16, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated that there were eight residents that resided on the nursing unit that were ambulatory and cognitively impaired. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). 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.
  • • 32% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Souderton Mennonite Homes's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES 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 Souderton Mennonite Homes Staffed?

CMS rates SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Souderton Mennonite Homes?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES during 2023 to 2025. These included: 6 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Souderton Mennonite Homes?

SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES 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 71 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SOUDERTON, Pennsylvania.

How Does Souderton Mennonite Homes Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (32%) 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 Souderton Mennonite Homes?

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 Souderton Mennonite Homes Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES 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 Souderton Mennonite Homes Stick Around?

SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Souderton Mennonite Homes Ever Fined?

SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES 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 Souderton Mennonite Homes on Any Federal Watch List?

SOUDERTON MENNONITE HOMES 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.