SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA VETERAN'S CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
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
- In Pennsylvania
- #232/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- 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.
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
11pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 35% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 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.
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.