PINECREST MANOR

763 JOHNSONBURG RD, ST MARYS, PA 15857 (814) 788-8488
Non profit - Corporation 138 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#213 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Pinecrest Manor has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for care. It ranks #213 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of facilities, and #2 out of 2 in Elk County, meaning there is only one other local option that is better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 36%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff members are stable and familiar with the residents. On the downside, there have been concerns regarding medication storage and care planning, as well as reports from residents about insufficient nursing staff leading to delays in assistance. In one instance, a resident reported waiting excessively for help to get to the bathroom, causing distress. Overall, while Pinecrest Manor has some strengths, families should be aware of these areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In Pennsylvania
#213/653
Top 32%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% 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
○ Average
Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 36%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

Feb 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan for one of 23 residents reviewed (Resident R99...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan for one of 23 residents reviewed (Resident R99). Findings include: A facility policy entitled, Care Plan: Baseline (IPOC) dated 2/06/25, revealed Baseline PCM IPOC will be entered and developed for each resident within 48 hours. Resident R99 's clinical record revealed an admission date of 1/09/25, with diagnoses that included diabetes, high blood pressure, anemia, and acute kidney injury. Resident R99 's clinical record lacked evidence that a baseline care plan was initiated for Resident R99. During an interview on 2/12/25, at 1:00 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the clinical record of Resident R99 lacked evidence that a baseline care plan was initiated. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1) Nursing services
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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on reveiew of clinical records, observations and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to promote the physical and mental ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on reveiew of clinical records, observations and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to promote the physical and mental well-being and meet the needs of seven of 23 residents interviewed (Residents R80, R12, R34, R37, R93, R79, and R51). Findings include: Independent interview on 2/10/25, at 4:13 p.m. revealed that Resident R51 disclosed that he/she cannot walk, uses an electric wheelchair for mobility, and requires a mechanical lift to transfer. Resident R51 shared that there are times (especially on off shifts and weekends) when he/she waits on the toilet for an hour to get help, and that he/she has waited so long to get to the bathroom, he/she soiled his/her clothing. Resident R51 also stated that staff will come in and turn off the bell, and not return. Interviews during the Resident Council meeting on 2/11/25, between 1:00 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. revealed that six out of six alert and oriented residents were in attendance (Residents R80, R12, R34, R37, R93, and R79) and reported concerns related to staff not responding to their call bells timely, and all six residents confirmed that it is common to wait over an hour for your call bell to get answered, especially on 3-11 shift and weekends, and that they have just learned to do what they can for themselves and let other stuff go because you can't get help anyways. Resident R12 shared that he/she waited this morning until 10:30 a.m. to get his/her shower and then decided he/she would have to go ahead and get dressed before lunch so he/she could attend the meeting at 1:00 p.m. Resident R12 also stated that he/she has not been walked by staff and that his/her walker hasn't been out of the closet in months. Resident R34 shared that he/she can't remember last shower I got, and that he/she washes up at the sink. Resident R34 also stated that he/she sleeps in a recliner because he/she knows they can get out of it on his/her own to get to the bathroom when needed. Resident R79 shared that he/she is independent in his/her room and can transfer from surface to surface on his/her own, but that he/she observes and witnesses long call bell waits. Resident R93 confirmed you just know that if they are short-staffed you aren't going to get help anytime fast, and especially on evenings and weekends, you just don't ring because no one's going to answer it. Resident R80 shared that he/she is supposed to be walked Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and if there are not enough nurse aides, the restorative aides (RA) get pulled to work the floor, and he/she hasn't been walked in a couple of weeks. Review of Resident R80's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 7/17/24, for walking three times a week, and review of the Restorative Detail Report revealed that he/she hadn't been walked since 1/31/25. During an interview on 2/12/25, at 9:45 a.m. Licensed Practical Nurse Employee E8 confirmed Resident R80 had not been walked since 1/31/25, due to restorative staff being pulled to the floor to work as nurse aides, and that today there are two restorative staff on the floor as nurse aides until 11:00 a.m. and then will switch to performing restorative duties. Observation on 2/13/25, at 8:47 a.m. revealed RA Employee E3 was providing feeding assistance to a dependent resident. During an interview at that time, RA Employee E3 verified that they are pulled to the floor to work as nurse aides due to nursing being short staffed and that often only leaves time during the day for restorative duties with about three residents from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and working around other afternoon activities for the residents. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(4)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, review of clinical records and facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent the potential for cross contamination (the spreading o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, review of clinical records and facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent the potential for cross contamination (the spreading of germs/microorganisms from one surface to another) during wound care for one of 23 residents reviewed (Resident R13). Findings include: A facility policy entitled, Handwashing and Hand Hygiene dated 2/06/25, revealed that hand hygiene be performed after handling soiled equipment and after removing gloves. Resident R13's clinical record revealed an admission date of 3/15/22, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease (brain condition that causes a progressive decline in memory, thinking, learning and organizing skills), Venous stasis (a condition that occurs when blood doesn't flow properly from the legs back to the heart), and congestive heart failure (CHF- long-term condition that happens when your heart can't pump blood well enough to give your body a normal supply). Observation of wound care on 2/12/25, at 9:27 a.m. revealed the following: Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E1 donned (put on) a clean gown and gloves, positioned Resident R13's left leg, removed the sock, changed gloves, removed the soiled dressing, changed gloves, cleansed the wound, changed gloves, applied the medication to the wound, changed gloves, and applied the clean dressing. LPN Employee E1 failed to perform hand hygiene each time he/she changed his/her gloves, or four times throughout the dressing change. Registered Nurse (RN) Employee E2 donned a clean gown and gloves, assisted with positioning Resident R13's left leg, removed gloves, used bare hands to pick up and move garbage can next to end of bed, donned gloves, picked up and held Resident R13's left foot at the ball of the foot and near the Achille's, and using his/her gloved finger pointed to areas on wound near the open surface of the wound during the dressing change. RN Employee E2 failed to perform hand hygiene after touching the garbage can before donning clean gloves. During an interview at that time RN Employee E2 and LPN Employee E1 confirmed that they should have performed hand hygiene before donning clean gloves. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c)(d) Resident care policies 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store schedule II-V medications in a separately locked, permanently affixed comp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policies, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store schedule II-V medications in a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment in three of four medication rooms reviewed (A/B, C/D and E/F); the facility failed to prevent the opportunity for potential unauthorized access of medications on two of four medication carts observed (D and F); and the facility failed to appropriately discard outdated medications for one of four medication carts reviewed (E wing). Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Narcotic Policy PCM dated 2/06/25, revealed Schedule II-V medications are stored in a permanently affixed, double-locked compartment separate from all other medications. Review of facility policy entitled Medication cart: Med Pass Guidelines dated 2/06/25, revealed that Multi-dose vials such as insulin must have either opened on date or used by date which should be checked prior to administration. Review of facility policy entitled Pharmaceutical Services and Medication Storage dated 2/06/25, revealed Medications will be in containers that meet regulatory requirements and stored safely. Except for those medications requiring refrigeration .medications intended for internal use are stored in a medication cart . Review of manufacturer's guidelines revealed that an open pen of Lantus Insulin (medication to treat diabetes and help control blood sugar levels) must be used within 28 days after opening or be discarded, even if the vial still contains insulin. Observation of drug storage on 2/10/25, at 2:55 p.m. of C and D wings medication room refrigerator revealed a clear plastic locked box and inside the clear plastic box were two carpujects (a syringe device for the administration of injectable fluid medications) of Lorazepam (a controlled antianxiety medication). The shelf with the clear plastic box containing the Lorazepam was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator allowing the shelf and the Lorazepam to be removed from the refrigerator. During an interview at the time of observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Employee E6, he/she confirmed that the clear plastic box containing Lorazepam was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator. He/she also confirmed that the schedule II-V medications should be stored in a separately locked permanently affixed compartment. Observation of drug storage on 2/10/25, at 3:12 p.m. of A and B wings medication room refrigerator revealed a clear plastic locked box and inside the clear plastic box was one carpuject and one vial of Lorazepam. The shelf with the clear plastic box containing the Lorazepam was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator allowing the shelf and the Lorazepam to be removed from the refrigerator. During an interview at the time of observation with LPN Employee E7, he/she confirmed that the clear plastic box containing Lorazepam was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator. He/she also confirmed that the schedule II-V medications should be stored in a separately locked permanently affixed compartment. Observation of drug storage on 2/10/25, at 3:16 p.m. of E and F wings medication room refrigerator revealed two carpujects of Lorazepam lying on the refrigerator shelf. The refrigerator lacked a separately locked permanently affixed compartment for the schedule II-V medications which allowed the Lorazepam to be removed from the refrigerator. During an interview at the time of observation with LPN E5, he/she confirmed that the Lorazepam was not in a separately locked compartment that was permanently affixed to the refrigerator. He/she also confirmed that the schedule II-V medications should be stored in a separately locked permanently affixed compartment. Observation of drug storage on 2/10/25, at 3:16 p.m. of E wing medication cart revealed an open pen of Lantus insulin with no date indicating when the pen was opened. During an interview at the time of observation with LPN Employee E5, he/she confirmed that the open Lantus Insulin lacked an opened date. He/she also confirmed that due to the Lantus insulin having no opened date the insulin should have been discarded. Observation of the D wing medication cart on 2/10/25, at 4:30 p.m. revealed that the medication cart was sitting in front of a resident's room with the back of the cart facing into the hallway. On the back of the medication cart were two open shelves with an open bottle of MiraLAX, an open bottle of Pepto-Bismol, and two bottles of Robitussin, one that had been opened. Further observations revealed that the nurse continued to two other resident rooms leaving the back of the cart facing into the hallway and out of view while in a resident's room. During an interview at the time of observations with LPN Employee E4, he/she confirmed that there were medications on the shelf on the back of the medication cart which were out of view and could allowed unauthorized access to the medications. He/she also confirmed that the medications should not be accessible and should be locked in the medication cart. Observation of the F wing medication cart on 2/10/25, at 4:50 p.m. revealed that the medication cart was sitting in front of a resident's room with the back of the cart facing into the hallway. On the back of the medication cart were two open shelves with an open bottle of MiraLAX, an open bottle of Milk of Magnesium, three bottles of Robitussin, two that were opened and two open bottles of Robitussin DM. Further observations revealed that the nurse continued to two other resident rooms leaving the back of the cart facing into the hallway and out of view while in a resident's room. During an interview at the time of observations with LPN Employee E5, he/she confirmed that there were medications on the shelf on the back of the medication cart which were out of view and could allowed unauthorized access to the medications. He/she also confirmed that the medications should not be accessible and should be locked in the medication cart. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1) Nursing services
Mar 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident R2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident R201) and failed to provide a written summary of the baseline care plan and order summary to the resident and/or representative for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident R99). Findings include: A facility policy entitled, Care Plan: Baseline (IPOC) dated 2/21/24, stated Baseline PCM IPOC will be entered and developed for each resident within 48 hours. Resident R201 's clinical record revealed an admission date of 2/27/24, with diagnoses that included diabetes, high blood pressure, and peripheral arterial disease (narrowing of arteries, usually in the leg that result in reduced blood flow). Resident R201 's clinical record lacked evidence that a baseline care plan was initiated for Resident R201. During an interview on 3/13/24, at 1:23 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the clinical record of Resident R201 lacked evidence that a baseline care plan was initiated. Resident R99's clinical record revealed an admission date of 1/24/24, with diagnoses that included history of a stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply), cardiovascular disease (disease of the heart or blood vessels), history of falling, and anxiety. Resident R99's clinical record lacked evidence that a written summary of the baseline care plan and order summary was provided to Resident R99 and/or his/her representative. During an interview on 3/14/24, at 12:05 p.m. the Director of Nursing confirmed that the clinical record of Resident R99 lacked evidence that a written summary of the baseline care plan and order summary was provided to the resident and/or his/her representative. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one of 22 residents reviewed (Resident R7). Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled Care Plan: Interdisciplinary dated 2/21/24, stated the purpose is to Provide a comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified including those identified in the comprehensive assessment, and formulate individualized treatment plans that promote maximum functioning and well-being and Nursing staff must notify RNAC (Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator) of changes that could initiate new or additional care plans. Resident R7's clinical record revealed an admission date of 3/15/21, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Dementia (a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking, and social abilities), Seizures, and High Blood Pressure. Resident R7's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 5/30/23 indicating Wanderguard (a bracelet applied to a resident's wrist or ankle or a device used by the resident for mobility [walker or wheelchair]to alert the staff of residents attempts to leave the facility) to prevent resident from leaving the facility unattended. The clinical record lacked evidence that a care plan had been developed to address Resident R7's risk for wandering or elopement and use of wanderguard bracelet. During an interview on 3/13/24, at approximately 3:37 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing confirmed that a care plan had not been developed to address Resident R7's wandering or elopement risk and use of a wanderguard bracelet. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(3)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and manufacturer's instructions, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly dated when ope...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and manufacturer's instructions, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly dated when opened and discarded in a timely manner for one of two medication rooms observed (Unit A/B medication room). Findings include: Review of facility policy entitled PPD [solution used for tuberculosis testing upon admission and for employment], Administration dated 2/21/24, revealed Discard bottle 30 days after opened. Review of manufacturer's recommendations for Tubersol PPD indicated that vials which are entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded. Observation of drug storage on 3/13/24, at approximately 11:12 a.m. in Unit A/B medication storage room refrigerator revealed and an opened vial of Tubersol PPD without an open date, therefore the staff were unable to determine the discard date. During an interview at that time, Licensed Practical Nurse Employee E2 confirmed that the opened Tubersol PPD vial lacked an open date and staff were unable to determine the discard date. 28. Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28. Pa. Code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1) Nursing services
Apr 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of 20 residents reviewed (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of 20 residents reviewed (Residents R2 and R91). Findings included: Review of facility policy dated 3/10/23, entitled Care Plan: Baseline (IPOC [Interdisciplinary Plan of Care]) revealed that Comprehensive IPOC will be completed by day 21 of stay and updated throughout entire stay. Review of Resident R2's clinical record revealed an admission date of 12/7/22, with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that results in difficulty breathing), obstructive sleep apnea (sleep disorder that results in a person stopping and starting to breathe while sleeping), and high blood pressure. Observation on 4/26/23, at 1:32 p.m. revealed that Resident R2 was utilizing oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula (tube that goes through the nose used to deliver oxygen) and that Resident R2 had a c-pap (a machine used when sleeping to provide positive airway pressure to treat sleep apnea) that he/she uses nightly. Review of Resident R2's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 12/7/22, for oxygen administration at two liters per minute via nasal cannula and a physician's order dated 3/28/23, for c-pap on at bedtime and off in the morning. Review of Resident R2's comprehensive care plan on 4/27/23, lacked reference to Resident R2 having sleep apnea or the usage of oxygen and c-pap. During an interview on 4/27/23, at 2:25 p.m. Licensed Practical Nurse Assessment Coordinator Employee E1, confirmed that a care plan had not been developed to address Resident R2's usage of oxygen or c-pap. Review of Resident R91's clinical record revealed an admission date of 2/25/23, with diagnoses that included kidney failure, diabetes, and arthritis. Review of Resident R91's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 2/25/23, for dialysis (a blood purifying treatment given when kidneys are not functioning properly) three times a week on Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Review of R91's comprehensive care plan on 4/27/23, lacked reference to Resident R91 requiring dialysis. During an interview on 4/27/23, at 10:58 a.m. Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator Employee E2, confirmed that a care plan had not been developed to address Resident R91 requiring dialysis. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 211.11(a) Resident care plan 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(3)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of clinical records and facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clinical rationale for the continued use of a PRN (as needed) psych...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of clinical records and facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clinical rationale for the continued use of a PRN (as needed) psychotropic (affecting the mind) medication beyond 14 days for one of 19 residents reviewed (Resident R75). Findings include: Review of a facility policy entitled, Psychotropic Medication Review and Gradual Dose Reduction dated 3/10/23, indicated that the use of PRN psychotropic medications (which are not antipsychotic) will be limited to 14 days unless a longer timeframe is deemed appropriate by the attending physician/prescriber, PRN psychotropic medications ordered must have the prescribing practitioner document the specific condition and indication for use in the clinical record, and all PRN extended psychotropic medications ordered will be discontinued after seven days unless the appropriate rationale is documented. Review of Resident R75's clinical record revealed an admission date of 2/17/23, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia (brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and, eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), memory impairment, anxiety, and depression. The clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 2/17/23, for Alprazolam (Xanax-medication to treat anxiety) 0.25 milligrams (mg) twice daily by mouth PRN for anxiety, that lacked the required stop date within 14 days or a clinical rationale for continued use beyond 14 days. Resident R75's clinical record revealed that the PRN Xanax was administered twice in February, and eight times in March 2023. During an interview on 4/27/23, at 2:25 p.m. Licensed Practical Nurse Assessment Coordinator Employee E1 confirmed that there wasn't a 14-day stop date if there wasn't one in the order. During an interview on 4/28/23, at 9:55 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that Resident R75's order for PRN Xanax lacked the required 14-day stop date and a clinical rationale documented by the physician to extend the PRN stop date past the required 14 days. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(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 B+ (80/100). 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.
  • • 36% 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 Pinecrest Manor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PINECREST MANOR 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 Pinecrest Manor Staffed?

CMS rates PINECREST MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pinecrest Manor?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at PINECREST MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 9 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Pinecrest Manor?

PINECREST MANOR 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 138 certified beds and approximately 99 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ST MARYS, Pennsylvania.

How Does Pinecrest Manor Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, PINECREST MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (36%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pinecrest Manor?

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 Pinecrest Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PINECREST MANOR has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Pinecrest Manor Stick Around?

PINECREST MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Pinecrest Manor Ever Fined?

PINECREST MANOR 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 Pinecrest Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

PINECREST MANOR 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.