BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Barnes-Kasson County Hospital has a Trust Grade of D, indicating that it is below average, which raises some concerns for families considering this facility. It ranks #384 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, but it is the top choice out of three facilities in Susquehanna County. The facility appears to be improving, with issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, earning a 4 out of 5 stars with a low turnover rate of 31%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $42,289, higher than 90% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents noted include a failure to provide proper fall prevention for two residents, resulting in a serious injury for one, and a lack of adherence to food safety practices that increased the risk of foodborne illness. While the nursing home has some strengths, such as good staffing levels, the serious safety concerns and high fines highlight significant weaknesses that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Pennsylvania
- #384/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $42,289 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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 (31%)
17 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
15pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility investigative reports and resident and staff interview it was determin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure documented evidence of clinical necessity fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of clinical records, staff interview, facility policy, and the facility's infection assessment tool, it was determined the facility failed to consistently implement its antibiotic st...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record and select policy review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the presence of physi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to timely consult with the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the physician failed to act on a drug irregular...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, the facility's infection control data, clinical records and the facility's infection control policy it was determined that the facility failed to develop and imple...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select incident reports, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 provide housekeeping and maintenance se...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to include a recapitulation...
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
Based on observations and a review of select facility policy and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to label multi dose medication bottles with open dates to ensure acceptable...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide therapeutic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the pharmacist conducted a drug regimen review at least monthly that included a thor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on select facility policy review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by famil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and...
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
- • 31% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $42,289 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Barnes-Kasson County Hospital's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Barnes-Kasson County Hospital Staffed?
CMS rates BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Barnes-Kasson County Hospital?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Barnes-Kasson County Hospital?
BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 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 58 certified beds and approximately 38 residents (about 66% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SUSQUEHANNA, Pennsylvania.
How Does Barnes-Kasson County Hospital Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (31%) 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 Barnes-Kasson County Hospital?
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 Barnes-Kasson County Hospital Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Barnes-Kasson County Hospital Stick Around?
BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Barnes-Kasson County Hospital Ever Fined?
BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL has been fined $42,289 across 1 penalty action. The Pennsylvania average is $33,502. 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 Barnes-Kasson County Hospital on Any Federal Watch List?
BARNES-KASSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 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.