JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Juniper Village at Brookline-Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #189 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state, and is #3 out of 6 in Centre County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility is improving, with the number of identified issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing has a mixed rating, with a 3/5 star score and an impressive 0% turnover rate, suggesting staff are stable and familiar with residents, but there is an average RN coverage that might not meet all needs. While Juniper Village has no fines on record, which is a positive sign, some specific concerns have been noted, such as residents waiting too long for staff assistance when needing to use the bathroom, and issues with maintaining proper ambulation and food service standards. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing stability and improved oversight, families should be aware of the areas needing attention.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #189/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among Pennsylvania's 100 nursing homes, only 0% achieve this.
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided in a manner that enhanced resident dignity for one of 15 residents s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected residents' status for one of 15 residents reviewed (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's medication regime was free from potentially unnecessary medications for two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store resident medications on ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documents, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for one of 14 residents reviewed (Res...
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 and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care regarding integrated hospice care and services for one of two re...
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 resident and staff interview, it was determined that that facility failed to address or implement consultant service recommendations to aid in healing skin break do...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a restorative nursi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed ensure safe self-administration of a tube feeding to ensure acceptable parameters of nutrit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement individ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure dental concerns were addressed for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 27 ).
Findings in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff and family interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care or services to maintain a resident's ambulation status for two of two residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food and maintain food service equipment in a safe and sanitary manner in the facility's main kitchen.
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate resident needs regarding the accessibility to a call bell for three of 16 residents rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of select facility policies and procedures, employee personnel records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their abuse prohibition policy pert...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide specialized rehabilitation services for two of two residents reviewed (Residents 36 and 7).
F...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received pneumococcal immunizati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop individualized approa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK 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 Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk Staffed?
CMS rates JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK during 2023 to 2025. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk?
JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 116 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 40% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in STATE COLLEGE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk?
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 Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK 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 Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk Stick Around?
JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk Ever Fined?
JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK 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 Juniper Village At Brookline-Rehabilitation And Sk on Any Federal Watch List?
JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BROOKLINE-REHABILITATION AND SK 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.