LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD

12 LUTHERAN HOME DRIVE, TELFORD, PA 18969 (215) 723-9819
Non profit - Corporation 75 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#74 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Lutheran Community at Telford has an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating a high level of care and satisfaction among residents and families. It ranks #74 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of statewide facilities, and #10 out of 58 in Montgomery County, meaning only nine local options perform better. However, the facility’s trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from one in 2024 to two in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated 5 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 32%, significantly lower than the state average, indicating that staff are experienced and familiar with the residents. On the downside, there were specific concerns noted during inspections, including a failure to maintain proper catheter care for a resident, with the catheter bag placed on the floor, which could lead to infection risks. Additionally, another resident was catheterized without necessity, despite being continent, suggesting a lack of individualized care. Finally, there was an instance where a medication was administered outside of the prescribed guidelines, which could pose health risks.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#74/653
Top 11%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 52 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 2 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 (32%)

    16 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 32%

14pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

Jul 2025 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

Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adequate catheter care was provided for one of two...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adequate catheter care was provided for one of two sampled residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. (Resident 15) Findings included: Review of the facility policy entitled, Foley Catheter, Maintenance, last reviewed June 2, 2025, revealed that catheter maintenance was completed with current standards of care which included not to place the catheter bag on the floor. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 15 had diagnoses that included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder and congestive heart failure. On April 12, 2025, the physician ordered for the resident to have an indwelling catheter every shift. On July 1, 2025, at 10:39 a.m. and 1:28 p.m., Resident 15 was observed lying in bed with the catheter bag containing urine on the floor and the overbed tray table wheels on top of the bag. On July 2, 2025, at 12:35 p.m., Resident 15 was observed sitting in a reclining chair with the catheter bag containing urine on the floor. In an interview on July 2, 2025, at 1:20 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the indwelling catheter bag should not be in contact with the floor. CFR 483.25(e) Incontinence Previously cited 5/13/25 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
May 2025 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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was provided individualized care and services in regard to diagnostic testing and was not catheterized unless necessary for one of four sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Bladder Care/Foley Catheter Insertion, Removal/Obtaining Specimen, revealed that foley catheter insertion, maintenance, and removal were to be completed in accordance with current standards of care. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included heart failure, anemia, malignant neoplasm of the prostate, and acute kidney failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was alert and oriented and was continent of bladder. A review of the care plan dated April 2, 2025, revealed that he was at risk for incontinence due to impaired mobility and that he was continent of bladder. There was an intervention to assist the resident to the toilet as needed and to ensure that he had an unobstructed path to the bathroom. Further review of nursing documentation dated April 4, 2025, revealed that the resident was alert and oriented and was able to independently ambulate to and from the bathroom. A review of the care plan dated April 7, 2025, revealed that Resident 1 had a fever of unknown origin. There was an intervention for staff to obtain a urine specimen for analysis to rule out a UTI. On April 7, 2025, a physician ordered for staff to obtain a urine specimen for analysis due to fever. On April 8, 2025, at 5:54 a.m., a registered nurse noted that the resident had been straight catheterized for the urine specimen. The nurse further noted that the urine was yellow with some sediment noted and that his bladder had emptied for almost 500 cubic centimeters (cc) of yellow urine. The nurse also noted that at the end of the output the resident had hematuria (blood in the urine). At 4:15 a.m., the resident rang the call bell because he had taken himself to the bathroom and staff had noted hematuria in the toilet. In an interview on May 13, 2025, at 12:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated that the nurse had collected the urine specimen via catheterization as per the policy; however, the resident was alert and oriented, able to make his needs known to staff, able to urinate on his own, and able to take himself to the bathroom. The facility failed to ensure the resident was not catheterized unless necessary and failed to provide individualized care and services in order to obtain a urine specimen by means other then catheterization when the resident was able to voluntarily void. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency
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 ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 19) Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 19) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 19 had diagnoses that included hypotension and Parkinson's disease. A physician's order dated May 5, 2023, directed staff to administer a medication (midodrine hydrochloride) three times a day for orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure when standing, sitting, or lying down). Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 140 millimeters mercury (mm/Hg) or higher. Review of Resident 19's Medication Administration Record revealed that staff administered the medication when the resident's SBP was above 140 mm/Hg on four occasions in May 2024 and one occasion in June 2024. In an interview on June 13, 2024, at 12:10 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the medications were administered outside of established parameters for Resident 19. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Jul 2023 2 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

**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 ensure that the Minimum Data ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the resident's current status for one of 17 sampled residents. (Resident 15) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 15 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included anemia, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, and dementia. Review of a nursing admission assessment dated [DATE], revealed no documentation that Resident 15 had a pressure ulcer. On May 17, 2023, a nurse noted that staff identified a suspected deep tissue injury to the right heel. Review of section M (assessment that determined the condition of the resident's skin) of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had an unhealed pressure ulcer that was present upon admission to the facility. In an interview on July 7, 2023, at 9:40 a.m., Registered Nurse 1 confirmed that Resident 15 had a pressure ulcer to the right heel and that the ulcer developed after the resident was readmitted to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent on one of two nursing units ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent on one of two nursing units observed during medication administration. (Second floor nursing unit) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 7 had a physician's order dated June 7, 2023, that staff was to administer divalproex (an anticonvulsant medication) every morning. The order indicated that the medication was to be given whole and was not to be crushed. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 47 had a physician's order dated June 28, 2022, that staff was to administer aspirin every morning. The order indicated that the medication was to be given whole and was not to be crushed. During observation of medication administration on July 6, 2023, at 8:49 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN1) crushed both medications which resulted in a medication error rate of 5.41%. In an interview on July 7, 2023, at 1:29 p.m., Registered Nurse 1 confirmed that the medications were not to be crushed. 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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). 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.
  • • Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
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 Lutheran Community At Telford's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Lutheran Community At Telford Staffed?

CMS rates LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lutheran Community At Telford?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD during 2023 to 2025. These included: 5 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Lutheran Community At Telford?

LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD 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 75 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TELFORD, Pennsylvania.

How Does Lutheran Community At Telford Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lutheran Community At Telford?

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 Lutheran Community At Telford Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD 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 5-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 Lutheran Community At Telford Stick Around?

LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Lutheran Community At Telford Ever Fined?

LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD 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 Lutheran Community At Telford on Any Federal Watch List?

LUTHERAN COMMUNITY AT TELFORD 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.