SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER

ONE VETERANS DRIVE, SPRING CITY, PA 19475 (610) 948-2400
Government - State 238 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
48/100
#232 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran's Center has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #232 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half overall, but #12 out of 20 in Chester County suggests only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, as the number of issues increased from 2 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 35%, which is well below the state average, ensuring that staff are familiar with the residents. However, the facility has faced $33,234 in fines, which is concerning and suggests compliance issues. Specific incidents include a critical situation where a resident suffered a second-degree burn due to improper food heating practices, indicating a lack of staff training. In another serious incident, a resident was hospitalized after receiving heart medication outside prescribed parameters, highlighting medication management issues. A further incident involved a resident sustaining a burn from hot liquids due to insufficient supervision, raising concerns about safety practices. Overall, while the staffing and RN coverage are positive aspects, there are serious safety and compliance issues that families should consider.

Trust Score
D
48/100
In Pennsylvania
#232/653
Top 35%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$33,234 in fines. Higher than 100% of Pennsylvania facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 79 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
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 5 issues

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 (35%)

    13 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $33,234

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
May 2025 5 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of the facility's policy and procedures, facility documentation, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure direct care staff ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of the facility's policy and procedures, facility documentation, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were educated on the safe food heating/reheating process. This failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy situation when it was determined a licensed nurse whom the facility failed to educate regarding safe food heating protocol failed to check the temperature of ramen soup after heating it in a microwave resulting in Resident 78 sustaining a second-degree burn to the chest. Failure of the facility to provide education to all direct care staff regarding safe food heating resulted in a situation that jeopardized the health and safety of Resident 78. This was identified as a past non-compliance situation. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dietary Services: Food Palatability/Re-heating revision date of January 2021, revealed it is the policy of the facility, meals are prepared and readied at proper (safe and appetizing) temperature, meaning both appetizing to the resident and minimizing the risk for scalding burns. Further review of the same policy revealed food/beverages will be heated, stirred, temped (temperature taken), stirred again, and re-temped before delivery: Ensure no hot spots are in the food/beverages by stirring The temperature of the food/beverages will be taken before delivering the item to the resident; Temperatures of any hot food/beverage items, such as commercially processed and packaged ready-to-eat foods are at least 140 F and not exceed 165 F. Review of Resident 78's diagnosis list included Diabetes (group of metabolic disorders characterized by a high blood sugar level over a prolonged period), and Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD-circulatory condition that affects blood vessels outside the heart and brain, particularly in the legs and arms). Review of Resident 78's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- standardized assessment tool that measures health status in long-term care residents) dated February 5, 2025, revealed Resident 78 was cognitively intact and had no impairments of the upper extremities. Review of the Occupational Therapy (type of rehabilitation therapy that focuses on helping people perform the tasks necessary for daily life) progress notes dated March 18, 2025, revealed Resident 78 requires set-up assistance with feeding/eating. Observation conducted on May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., revealed Resident 78 lying in bed without a shirt. A light red mark was observed on the resident's chest and abdomen. Interview with Resident 78 conducted on May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. revealed, Resident 78 reported a few weeks ago, at nighttime (unable to provide exact date and time), he/she requested staff prepare him/her a cup of instant ramen noodle soup. The staff delivered the soup overfilled with hot water, enough that when he/she grabbed the cup, the soup spilled onto his/her chest which resulted in a burn. Review of the nursing progress notes dated April 1, 2025, at 10:08 p.m., revealed staff reported at approximately 4:30 p.m., the resident spilled soup on his/her chest area. The resident was noted with an intact reddened area measuring 12 x 15 cm. (centimeters) to the upper chest. The resident stated he/she was eating the noodle soup and some of it spilled on the chest. Review of the NP's (Nurse Practitioner) notes dated April 2, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., revealed resident was seen for chief complaint of burn/pain. Resident indicated, yesterday, one of the girls heated up my soup and there was more water in there than I was expecting so when I went to eat it, I spilled it on my chest. The resident complained of pain immediately but indicated area no longer painful unless it was touched. The NP ordered a treatment of Silvadene (medication used to treat burns) to the burn area and wound consult. Review of the wound care consult dated April 8, 2025, at 12:02 p.m., revealed resident was seen to assess mid chest post burn. The same consult revealed resident had a second-degree burn (damage to the outer layer of the skin and the underlying layer) measuring 12 x 12 cm field to the upper mid-chest and a 5.0 x 5.0 cm field inferior to the larger burn site. An order to continue the Silvadene to the burn area was initiated. Review of the facility's investigation, revealed a statement from licensed nurse Employee E3 indicating: At 4:30 p.m., I heated up a cup of noodles and some other food for [resident]. I brought the soup to him/her and left (room) to finish heating the rest of his/her food. When I returned to his/her room, his/her soup was all over him/her. I asked him/her what happened, (resident) said he/she spilled it on him/herself. His/her shirt was wet, and I asked him/her if I could remove it to look at his/her skin then I went to get the nurse. Review of clinical records and facility documentation failed to reveal documented evidence of food temperatures taken by Employee E3 indicating Employee E3 did not followed the facility's policy of safe food/beverages heating/reheating by not checking the soup temperature before serving the cup of ramen noodle soup to Resident 78. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) conducted on May 6, 2025, at noon, confirmed Employee E3, served Resident 78 the noodle soup without checking its temperature. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed Employee E3 did not follow the facility's policy regarding the safe heating of the food/beverages. Further interview with the NHA revealed that all direct care staff which includes nurses and nursing assistants were not educated/trained regarding the facility policy and procedure on safe food/beverages heating/reheating to prevent burns. An Immediate Jeopardy situation was identified on May 6, 2025, at 1:36 p.m. and the Immediate Jeopardy template was presented to the NHA, regarding the facility's failure to ensure all direct staff were educated/trained on safe food/beverages heating/re-heating to prevent burns to the residents. The facility submitted and completed an immediate action plan on May 6, 2025, and was accepted on May 6, 2025, at 2:54 p.m. The facily's immediate action plan included the following: Education was provided to the staff (Employee E3); A whole house audit was conducted to check all microwaves in the facility had thermometers attached to it; All residents were assessed to ensure no other residents received a burn from re-heated food items; Process signage for re-heating food in the microwave were attached to the microwaves; House-wide education developed and implemented for all facility staff on re-heating process, education was implemented and presented during the new hire and agency orientation; Dietary performed audits to ensure thermometers are present and functioning on all microwaves in resident areas; Audits were completed and ongoing time a week for four weeks, then every other week times four; The outcome of audits will be reviewed at the QA meeting. The facility self identified the jeopardy at the time of the incident, April 1, 2025. The facility implemented a corrective action of education, whole house assessments, and monitoring audits. On May 7, 2025, after review of audits and documentation of completed employee education as well as interviews with 20 staff members revealed the facility had completed the interventions developed for the action plan on April 26, 2025. The Immediate Jeopardy was lifted on May 7, 2025, at 11:12 a.m., after confirmation the action plan was implemented and completed. The Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing were informed the residents were no longer in immediate jeopardy with Immediate Jeopardy lifted. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3)(e)(1) Management Previously cited 8/24/23 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(3) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services Previously cited 6/14/24, 3/16/24, 8/24/23
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely notify the physician of a significant weight change for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely notify the physician of a significant weight change for one of the 35 residents reviewed (Resident 63). Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Weight Policy, last revised on June 23, 2020, revealed routine weights will be done to monitor or detect any changes that would adversely affect the resident's health. A weight will be obtained upon admission and/or readmission, then weekly times four weeks. A weight loss or gain of 5% in one month will require a reweight. Dietitians will evaluate weekly weights and monthly weights to determine if additional interventions are needed. If there is a significant weight change, the Dietitian will notify the physician. A review of Resident 63's diagnosis list includes Congestive Heart Failure (CHF-A weakened heart condition that causes fluid buildup in the feet, arms, lungs, and other organs), Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD-Gradual loss of kidney functions which can result in renal failure). A review of Resident 63's physician's order dated November 15, 2024, revealed an order to weigh the resident three times a week to monitor for weight gain due to edema. A review of the weights and vitals revealed a weight of 197 pounds on January 10, 2025, and a weight of 217 pounds on June 15, 2025, a 20 pounds (9.22%) weight gain in five days. Further review of the weights and vitals report revealed Resident 63 was not reweighed until January 20, 2025, five days after a significant weight gain was identified. Clinical records review failed to reveal that the resident was assessed upon identifying a significant weight gain. The record review also failed to reveal that the physician was notified of the significant weight gain until reported weight concerns on January 24, 2025. Interview with the Director of Nursing on May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., confirmed physician was not notified of Resident 63's significant weight gain timely. The facility failed to ensure physician was notified of Resident 63's significant weight gain. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services Previously cited 6/14/24, 3/16/24
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 upon review of facility policy and procedure, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for fluid restriction and administratio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based upon review of facility policy and procedure, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for fluid restriction and administration of medication for one of one resident reviewed (Resident 52). Findings include: Review of facility policy and procedure titled Hydration Policy revealed Residents on fluid restriction will receive fluids as per Provider Order. Review of Resident 52's diagnosis list revealed diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF - excessive body/lung fluid caused by a weakened heart muscle), Diabetes Mellitus (DM - failure of the body to produce insulin to enable sugar to pass from the blood stream to cells for nourishment), urinary retention (bladder does not completely empty) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - disease process that causes decreased ability of the lungs to perform). Review of Resident 52's physician orders dated October 16, 2024, revealed 2000 cc Fluid Restriction. Total Dietary 680 cc, Total Nursing 1340 cc, (7-3 shift: dietary 480 cc, nursing 480 cc), (3-11 shift: dietary 180 cc, nursing 480 cc), (11-7 shift: nursing 380 cc). Review of Resident 52's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the I/O (intake and output) Chart Detail Report, revealed the facility failed to follow the 2000 cc fluid restriction ordered by the physician for the following dates: April 11, 2025 - 2220 cc; April 12, 2025 - 2960 cc; April 13, 2025 - 2530 cc; April 14, 2025 - 2120 cc; April 15, 2025 - 2240 cc; April 16, 2025 - 2720 cc; April 17, 2025 - 2960 cc; April 18. 2025 - 2240 cc; April 19, 2025 - 2340 cc; April 21, 2025 - 2840 cc; April 22, 2025 - 2530 cc; April 23, 2025 - 2120 cc; April 24, 2025 - 2960 cc; April 27, 2025 - 2560 cc; April 28, 2025 - 2090 cc and April 29, 2025 - 2388 cc. Further review of Resident 52's physician orders revealed an order for Midodrine (medication used to treat low blood pressure) 5 milligrams (mg) three times per day and to hold the medication of the systolic blood pressure is greater than 120 mmHg (millimeters of mercury). Review of April 2025 MAR revealed on April 3, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Resident 52 received Midodrine 5 mg for a blood pressure of 130/70 and on April 5, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. Resident 52 received Midodrine 5 mg for a blood pressure of 123/72. Review of May 2025 MAR revealed on May 4, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Resident 52 received Midodrine 5 mg for a blood pressure of 128/70 and on May 4, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. Resident 52 received Midodrine 5 mg for a blood pressure of 125/64. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on May 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. confirmed that the facility was not following physician orders for fluid restriction or medication administration for Resident 52. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(2) Nursing Services Previously cited 6/14/2024
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications necessary for residents with kidney disease were administered as ordered for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications necessary for residents with kidney disease were administered as ordered for one of the two residents reviewed (Resident 46). Findings include: A review of Resident 46 diagnosis list includes End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD- Where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer function on their own). Clinical records review revealed resident goes to Dialysis (A process of purifying the blood of a person whose kidneys are not working normally) every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, pickup time at 9:30 a.m. A review of Resident 46 physician's order dated November 9, 2025, revealed an order for Renvela (A medication used to control phosphorus levels for people with chronic kidney disease) 800 mg two tablets three times a day. The medications were scheduled at 8:00 a.m., 12 noon and 5:00 p.m. A review of the April 2025, Medication Administration Record revealed Renvela's medication was not administered at 12 noon on the following dates: April 2, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 28, and 30, 2025. The MAR documentation revealed medication not administered- Resident unavailable. Clinical records review failed to reveal Resident 46's physician was notified of the missed medications. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., confirmed that Renvela medication was not administered due to the resident being out of the facility for Dialysis. The DON also confirmed that the physician was not notified of the missed medications. The facility failed to ensure that ordered medications were administered to a resident on Dialysis. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services Previously cited 6/14/24, 3/16/24
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on a review of job descriptions, clinical records, it was determined that the Commandant and Director of Nursing did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that all direct staff wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of job descriptions, clinical records, it was determined that the Commandant and Director of Nursing did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that all direct staff were educated and trained with facility's policy and procedure regarding safe heating/re-heating of food and beverages to prevent resident from getting burns. Findings include: A review of the job description of the Commandant revealed the following: Responsible for managing and controlling all health-related activities and management functions of the facility; Establish and maintain a safe environment for residents and staff by operating safety programs that is in conformance with agency, state, and federal standards to protect the health and safety of the residents. A review of the job description of the Director of Nursing revealed the following: Directs all nursing care activities and participates in the administration of the multidisciplinary and non-clinical aspects of the resident's extended care facility's overall operation; In conjunction with multidisciplinary team, plan, direct, administer, coordinate, monitor, and evaluate facility-wide operations affecting health services; and Maintain current knowledge of developments in the field of nursing and communicate rules and regulations, facility and department policies and procedures to nursing staff by explaining and interpreting and ensure understanding and proper implementation and observance of these matters. Analyzes and evaluates long term care nursing operations to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory agency standards and requirements. Based on the findings in this report that identified that the facility failed to ensure education and training were provided to all direct care staff regarding safe food and beverages heating which placed residents in Immediate Jeopardy. The Commandant and the DON failed to fulfill their essential job duties to ensure that the federal and state guidelines and regulations were followed. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3)(e)(1) Management. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(2)(3)(5) Nursing services.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency
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 review of facility policy and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to timely assess the n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to timely assess the need for an indwelling urinary catheter for one of seven residents reviewed for urinary tract infections (UTI) (Resident 61). Findings include: Review of facility policy, Urinary Catheter Procedures, last revised December 30, 2022, revealed that A resident who enters the [facility] with an indwelling urinary catheter or subsequently receives one is assessed for removal of the catheter as soon as possible unless the resident ' s clinical condition demonstrates that catheterization is necessary .Residents identified with an indwelling urinary catheter will be assessed by utilizing the Indwelling Catheter Observation Form in the Electronic Health Record (EHR). This observation form will be completed when the catheter is present on admission/readmission, when a catheter is inserted, and quarterly as long as the catheter remains in place .Attempts will be made to remove the catheter as soon as possible when no indications exist for its continued use. Review of Resident 61's clinical record revealed the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] until January 5, 2024, for a fractured left hip with surgical repair. Review of Resident 61's physician's orders at the time of hospitalization revealed the resident did not have a foley catheter at the time. Review of Resident 61's hospital discharge summary from January 5, 2024 revealed the instructions: Continue Foley catheter for urinary retention, do void trial at skilled facility as ambulation improves. Further review of Resident 61's clinical record failed to reveal evidence that an Indwelling Catheter Observation Form was completed upon the resident's January 5, 2024 readmission. Further review of Resident 61's clinical record failed to reveal evidence that a void trial was attempted. Review of Resident 61's January 2024 Treatment Administration Record revealed the resident was documented as receiving catheter care every shift. Review of Resident 61's progress note revealed a nurse's note on January 19, 2024, at 12:06 a.m. which stated: Resident's urine observed cloudy with sediment. [supervisor] notified, VSS [vital signs stable], fluids encouraged as tolerated. Nursing will continue to monitor. Further review of Resident 61 ' s January 19, 2024 progress notes revealed a nurse's note at 2:32 p.m. which stated: Resident's foley output 120cc, cloudy and with sediment. No foul odor. VSS. Fluids encouraged. Nursing will monitor. Further review of Resident 61's January 19, 2024 progress notes revealed a nurse's note at 5:11 p.m. which stated: Resident reported to have cloudy urine with some confusion. UA/CS [(urine analysis/culture & sensitivity] order obtained. Further review of Resident 61's clinical record revealed the resident was sent to the hospital for hyponatremia (low sodium) on January 22, 2024, until January 30, 2024 and was subsequently found to have a UTI at the hospital and treated with antibiotics. Review of Resident 61's progress notes revealed a note from the CRNP (certified registered nurse practitioner) on February 16, 2024, which stated: Foley catheter not chronic despite documentation of it being chronic by ED ([Emergency Department]) . Resident returned from ED visit on 1/5/24 with foley with instructions to keep in place and do void trial at facility. Resident was sent out to ED with UTI due to catheter on 1/22/24. Plan of care: remove foley catheter now. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing on June 14, 2024, at 10:40 a.m. confirmed the facility failed to assess Resident 61 for the need for the foley catheter upon readmission from the hospital. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.10 (a)(c)(d) Resident care policies
Mar 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

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that Southeastern Pennsylvania Veterans' Center failed to ensure that one of 24 residents reviewed did not have an oncology consu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that Southeastern Pennsylvania Veterans' Center failed to ensure that one of 24 residents reviewed did not have an oncology consult timely (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of Resident R1's clnical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with a diagnosis of cancer. Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner assessed the resident on November 2, 2023 with a notation of cancer as a diagnosis. Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed a liver biopsy was scheduled for January 31, 2024 and an oncology (physician that specializes in treatment of cancer disorders) appointment scheduled for February 23, 2024. Review of Resident R1's clinical record failed to reveal any documented evidence that the resident's cancer was assessed by an oncologist or course of treatment identified. Interview on March 14, 2024 at approximately 11:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing, confirming the above information. Pa 28 211.12(a)(c)(d)(3)(5) Nursing Services Pa 28 211.5(f)(g)(h)Clinical Records
Aug 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act, facility policy, and clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards of practic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act, facility policy, and clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards of practice regarding medication administration for one of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 20). Findings include: According to Pennsylvania Code, Title 49, Professional and Vocational Standards, State Board of Nursing, section 21.145. Functions of the LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), subsection (a), The LPN is prepared to function as a member of the health-care team by exercising sound nursing judgment based on preparation, knowledge, experience in nursing and competency. Review of facility policy, Medication Administration - General, dated May 2015, revealed: Residents are identified before medication is administered. Methods of identification include: A. Checking identification band B. Checking photograph attached to medical record C. Calling resident by name d. If necessary, verifying resident identification with other facility personnel. Review of Resident 20's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated March 22, 2023, revealed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 05, indicating cognitive impairment. Further review of Resident 20's MDS revealed the resident did not have a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (failure of the body to produce insulin to enable sugar to pass from the blood stream to the cells for nourishment). Review of Resident 20's progress notes revealed a nurse's note from licensed nurse Employee E1 dated April 27, 2023, at 10:49 p.m. which stated: At [8:30 p.m.] this nurse was distracted and administered medication to wrong patient. This nurse called resident other name and resident replied. Administering Lantus [(long acting insulin used to lower blood sugar)] 30 unit in [right upper quadrant abdomen.] Leaving resident this nurse noticed it was the wrong patient . Supervisor informed this nurse that resident will be sent out. Resident was asymptomatic. Resident sent out with EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) to [hospital] at [9:45 p.m.]. Further review of Resident 20's clinical record revealed the resident returned from the hospital at approximately 2:00 a.m. after remaining asymptomatic and requiring no treatment. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on August 24, 2023, at approximately 11:25 a.m. confirmed licensed nurse Employee E1 incorrectly administered medication to Resident 20. 28 Pa. Code: 201.18(b)(1) Management. 28 Pa. Code: 211.12(d)(3)(5) Nursing services.
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, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications for two of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 20 and Resident 103). Findings include: Revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications for two of 34 residents reviewed (Resident 20 and Resident 103). Findings include: Review of Resident 20's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set - periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated March 22, 2023, revealed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 05, indicating cognitive impairment. Further review of Resident 20 ' s MDS revealed the resident did not have a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (failure of the body to produce insulin to enable sugar to pass from the blood stream to the cells for nourishment). Review of Resident 20's physician's orders failed to reveal any orders for insulin (medication used to lower blood sugar). Review of Resident 20's progress notes revealed a nurse's note from licensed nurse Employee E1 dated April 27, 2023, at 10:49 p.m. which stated: At [8:30 p.m.] this nurse was distracted and administered medication to wrong patient. This nurse called resident other name and resident replied. Administering Lantus [(long acting insulin)] 30 unit in [right upper quadrant abdomen.] Leaving resident this nurse noticed it was the wrong patient . Supervisor informed this nurse that resident will be sent out. Resident was asymptomatic. Resident sent out with EMT to [hospital] at [9:45 p.m.]. Further review of Resident 20's clinical record revealed the resident returned from the hospital at approximately 2:00 a.m. after remaining asymptomatic and requiring no treatment. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on August 24, 2023, at approximately 11:25 a.m. confirmed that Resident 20 received the wrong medication from licensed nurse Employee E1. Review of facility policy Medication Administration-General revision date May 2025 revealed medication are administered within one (1) hour before or after regularly scheduled time, except before or after meal orders. Review of Resident 103's physician orders revealed an active order for NovoLog (NovoLog is used to manage blood sugar levels in adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes) U-100 Insulin aspart: 34 units twice a day between meals at 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. with a start date of October 28, 2022. Interview conducted with Resident 103 on August 21, 2023, at approximately 10:33 a.m. stated that his insulin is administered late daily. Review of Resident 103's clinical record revealed an eMAR (electronic medication administration record) with documented NovoLog administration times for the following dates: 08/11/2023: 12:10 p.m., 05:18 p.m. 08/13/2023: 12:03 p.m., 05:08 p.m. 08/15/2023: 05:11 p.m. 08/16/2023: 05:23 p.m. 08/20/2023: 05:24 p.m. 08/21/2023: 12:13 p.m., 05:55 p.m. Interview conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed the above medication was administered late. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa Code 211.5(f) Clinical Records 28 PA Code 211.10(a) Resident care policies
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 perform wound treatment on a newly found pressure ulcer for one of 2 residents reviewed (Resident 24) Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to perform wound treatment on a newly found pressure ulcer for one of 2 residents reviewed (Resident 24) Findings Include: Review of Resident 24's Progress Notes revealed a nursing entry dated August 11, 2023 at 3:30 p.m. stating New area of concern reported by CNA(certified nursing assistant) during toileting. Reported to wound team for further evaluation. Further review of Resident 24's progress notes revealed a nursing entry date August 12, 2023 at 6:19 p.m. stating Resident to start Dakin's (a diluted solution bleach and other stabilizing ingredients, traditionally used as an antiseptic) solution to wound on back in am. Review of Resident 24's physician orders revealed at order with a start date of August 13, 2023 to cleanse the lower back ulcer with Normal Saline Solution (sterile salt water), pack wound with Daikin's soaked gauze and apply foam dressing. Review of Resident 24's Medication Administration Record revealed there was no evidence a treatment was placed on the wound until August 13, 2023. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator and the Assistant Director of Nursing on August 25, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. confirmed there was no documented evidence Resident 24 had wound care provided to the wound found on August 11, 2023 until August 13, 2023. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1)(3)(e)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records 28. Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services
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 policy and procedure, clinical record reviews, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent elopement for one of 2 residents reviewed. (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy and procedure, clinical record reviews, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent elopement for one of 2 residents reviewed. (Resident 164) Findings Include: Review of policy and procedure titled Wandering and Elopement last revised May 20, 2014 revealed a flight risk assessment will be completed upon admission, quarterly, annually, and change in condition as needed for episodes of wandering, A flight Risk Assessment score of 12 or greater indicates the need for an electronic monitoring device (EMD) to be placed on the resident's wrist or ankle. If an AMD is applied, the residents name and photo will be placed in the master photo book locate at the front desks and the nurse's station on each unit. Each resident will be reassessed as needed, and the EMD will be removed at the discretion of the interdisciplinary team following the reassessment. Further review of facility policy and procedure Wandering and Elopement defined elopement risk behavior as any behaviors including but not limited to; (1) resident is attempting to leave the home or secure unit, (2) making statement regarding leaving the home or verbalizing resistance to being placed in the home. Review of Resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated April 21, 2023 at 12:28 p.m. stating Resident was escorted to his new room. He is settled at this time. ESD was placed on his right wrist. He said to nurse while putting the ESD on his right wrist, why are you putting that ID on my wrist, you know I won't stay. Further review of resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated April 27, 2023 at 8:28 a.m. stating Resident is having a hard time with the adjustment to SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) placement, as in expressing dissatisfaction to family regarding lack of activities, despite different staff members encouraging him to attend. Resident often stating he is getting out of here, Further review of resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated April 28, 2023 at 11:24 a.m. stating Resident continues to adjust to facility often stating, I'm getting out of here. Further review of resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated May 14, 2023 at 11:50 a.m. stating Bill was observed ambulating in the hall looking for the elevators with his cane in one hand and a pillowcase with laundry in the other hand. He said he was looking for the place and needed to leave. Staff were able to figure out he wanted to do his laundry. Further review of resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated May 15, 2023 at 1:59 p.m. and 2:52 p.m. stating No elopement attempts during this monitoring period. ESD right wrist discontinued. Further review of resident 164's progress notes revealed a nursing entry dated July 20, 2023 at 10:12 p.m. Resident was very anxious and going up and down the halls in his wheelchair. Stated that he wasn't ready to go to bed yet. This nurse checked on resident at 8:55PM in his room and sitting in his w/c (wheelchair). At 9:15, security guard brought resident back to the floor. She stated that someone let resident out the front door. A resident from PC saw resident and came and told security guard that resident was outside Accutech (EMD) put on left wrist. Review of Resident 164's care plan revealed there was no care plan for wandering or elopement in place during the elopement of July 20, 2023. Resident 164 was incorrectly assessed as no longer being a wandering risk on May 15, 2023 when the EDM was removed resulting in resident 164 eloping from the facility. This information was brought to the Nursing Home Administrator on August 24, 2023 at 9:45 a,m. 28 Pa. Code 211.11(d) Resident care plan 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (F)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to to ensure that the drug regimen of each resident was reviewed monthly by a license...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy, clinical record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to to ensure that the drug regimen of each resident was reviewed monthly by a licensed pharmacist for four of five residents reviewed (Residents 23, 48, 138, and 145) and failed to act on the pharmacy recommendations in a timely way for two of five residents (Residents 23 and 132). Findings include: Review of facility policy Drug Regimen & Medical Chart Review revised June 19, 2019, indicated that at least once a month the resident's medical record will be reviewed concurrently with the drug regimen review (DRR) by a licensed pharmacist. The pharmacist will report any irregularities to the attending physician or CRNP (certified registered nurse practitioner), medical director and director of nursing for follow up with seven days. The attending physician or CRNP will document in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and acted upon. If the provider disagrees with the recommendation the provider must document in the clinical record the rationale. Review of Resident 23's Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR) between August 24, 2023, and September 1, 2022, revealed MRR's from March 2023, February 2023, and December 2022, where the physician failed to respond to the Pharmacist's recommendations. Additional review of Residents 23's MRRs failed to find any MRRs for the months of January 2023 and November 2022. Review of Resident 48's clinical record revealed that a monthly pharmacy medication review was not completed in November and December 2022. Review of Resident 132's physician's orders revealed an order for acetaminophen 650 milligrams every six hours as needed. Review of Resident 132's MRRs from December 2022, January 2023, February 2023, March 2023, and April 2023, revealed the pharmacist recommended adding instructions to the acetaminophen order to ensure the resident did not receive more than 3 grams per day. There was no physician's response or signature on the aforementioned MRRs. Review of Resident 132's May 2023 MRR revealed the physician agreed to the recommendation at this time and the resident's acetaminophen order was updated to reflect the change on May 22, 2023. The facility's failure to respond to the pharmacist's recommendation for Resident 132 from December 2022 to May 2023 was discussed with and confirmed with the Nursing Home Administrator on August 24, 2023, at 11:20 a.m. Review of Resident 138's clinical record revealed that a monthly pharmacy medication review was not completed in November and December 2022. Review of Resident 145's Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR) between September 1, 2022, and August 24, 2023, failed to find any MRRs for November 2022 and December 2022. Interview conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator on August 24, 2023, at approximately 10:36 a.m. confirmed the above findings. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c) Resident care policies 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f)(h) Clinical records 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(3)(d)(5) Nursing services
Mar 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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record, and interview; it was determined that the facility failed to ensure reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record, and interview; it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident was free from significant medication error by administering heart medication outside of physician directed parameters which resulted in harm of hospitalization for one of ten residents reviewed (Resident R1). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Medication Administration-General, with revision date of May 2015, indicated on page 2, section B(2) Medication are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending Medical provider. Review of facility policy titled Holding Medication/Treatments, with a revision date of June 2014, indicates on page 1, under Procedure Medication/treatments may not be held for any reason without a physician order. Section 2 states A physician order to hold medication or treatment may need obtained due to various factors including but not limited to: a. Blood level studies, b. Vital signs . Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed resident's diagnoses include but are not limited to following: Dementia (irreversible, progressive degenerative disease of the brain, resulting in loss of reality contact and functioning ability); Hypertension (Elevated /high blood pressure); Hypothyroid (the thyroid gland can't make enough thyroid hormone); Anemia (reduction in blood cells); and Neuropathy (nerve damage). Review of Resident R1's physician orders revealed an active order for Metoprolol (used to treat high blood pressure, also known as a beta blocker) 50 mg(miligram) BID (administer twice daily)- with instructions of Hold for Systolic (BP) blood pressure less than 110 and/or a (HR) heart rate less than 60 bpm (beats per minute). Review of Resident R1's clinical record including February 2023 eMAR (electric medication administration record) revealed on February 23, 2023, that Metoprolol 50 mg was administered to the resident with a blood pressure of 93/55 and a heart rate of 38, contradictory of the prescribed parameters. Interview conducted with licensed Emplolyee E1 on March 16, 2023, at approximately 1:02 P.M. confirmed the employee administered Metoprolol outside of the physician ordered parameters. Employee E1 indicated that he/she only checked the resident's blood pressure prior to administering Metoprolol 50 mg. Employee E1 then stated after administering Metoprolol 50 mg he/she checked the resident's heart rate which was 38 bpm. Employee E1 confirmed that he/she should have held the medication and not administer Metoprolol 50 mg to the resident. Review of Resident R1's progress notes dated February 24, 2023, revealed the resident was transferred to [local] hospital's emergency room for Bradycardia (heart rate less than 60 beats per minute) and Hypotension (low blood pressure). Review of Resident R1's hospital record revealed the resident was admitted from the emergency room to the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) with a diagnosis of Bradycardia, Hypotension, and urine retention. Further review of resident's hospital records revealed the residents was admitted to the hospital on [DATE], and discharged on March 7, 2023, a total of 13 days. Interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON), Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), and Assistant Nursing Home Administrator (ADON) on March 16, 2023, confirmed Employee E1 administered Metoprolol 50 mg to Resident R1 contradictory of physician ordered parameters, resulting in the resident being transferred and admitted to the hospital for Bradycardia and Hypotension. 28 Pa Code 211.10(c) Resident Care Policies 28 Pa Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services Previously cited on 08/09/22 and 3/23/22
Dec 2022 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, clinical record review and interviews with the staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide supervision for one resident (Resident R1) for hot liquids sustainin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, clinical record review and interviews with the staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide supervision for one resident (Resident R1) for hot liquids sustaining a burn which is being cited as past non-compliance. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food/Beverage Reheating Process revealed temperatures of any hot food/beverage items are to be at least 140 degrees F (Fahrenheit) and not exceed 165 degrees F. If the temperature is above 165 degrees F, the beverage should stand until cooling has occurred below the 165 degrees F temperature. Review of Resident 1's clinical record including quarterly MDS (periodic assessment of resident needs and capabilities) dated October 18, 2022, revealed a cognition level of 15 (cognitively intact) and a set up with supervision with meals. Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed a nursing note dated November 22, 2022, at 6:15 a.m., resident reported scalding self with hot water on his/her right thigh. Resident requested hot water earlier to make tea approximately 10 minutes prior. Upon assessment, an open area observed on right thigh measuring 10 cm (centimeter) x 7.5 cm noted. Further review of documentation by the wound nurse dated November 22, 2022 at 11:59 a.m. revealed, Resident 1 noted with scalded area from spilling hot water to right distal thigh. Area measures 0.5cm x 3.5 cm, wound bed darker pink, moist. Edges with dry peeling skin from ruptured blister. Surrounding tissue darker pink. Resident complained of tenderness to area. Facility investigation revealed that Employee E3 was interviewed on November 22, 2022 stating\ the following: (I) was asked by the resident to get some hot water to make tea. Employee E3 provided the hot water from the coffee machine. The resident was seated in his/her wheelchair the cup was placed on the counter along with creamer. The resident came back approximately 15 minutes later and said it spilled on his/her leg. Further statements from Employee E3 revealed, the resident was given a Styrofoam cup, but it was believed to be half full. The temperature of the hot water was not taken prior to giving it to the resident. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on December 14, 2022, at 11:45 a.m. revealed that Employee E3, should have taken the temperature of the hot water prior to giving it to Resident 1. The facility failed to follow the policy ensuring temperatures (above 165 degrees F) of a hot liquid would not be served to resident, which resulted in a burn for one resident (Resident 1). On November 22, 2022, the facility conducted education for the updated policy Food/Beverage Reheating with all staff completing the training by December 2, 2022. Review of facility compliance audits revealed they were intiated on November 22, 2022 and completed on December 2, 2022. Review of audits for compliance were conducted and interviews with the employees demonstrated understanding of the new policy. Resident 1's care plan was reviewed and noted to have new intervention of a weighted mug with a lid to be used for hot beverages. Facility has demonstrated compliance with the regulations since December 2, 2022. During an interview with the NHA and the DON on December 14, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. and review of the facility's immediate actions, education, competencies, audits, and review of the Quality Assurance monitoring process to sustain solutions, it was verified that the facility had implemented a plan of correction to ensure residents are supervised with hot liquids. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $33,234 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $33,234 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 48/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER 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 Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center Staffed?

CMS rates SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 11 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center?

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 238 certified beds and approximately 186 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a large facility located in SPRING CITY, Pennsylvania.

How Does Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center Stick Around?

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center Ever Fined?

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER has been fined $33,234 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,411. 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 Southeastern Pennsylvania Veteran'S Center on Any Federal Watch List?

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER 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.