PRESTON RESIDENCE

200 SYCAMORE DRIVE, WEST GROVE, PA 19390 (610) 869-6767
Non profit - Corporation 38 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#102 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Preston Residence in West Grove, Pennsylvania received an excellent Trust Grade of A, meaning it is highly recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #102 out of 653 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 20 in Chester County, indicating that only six local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars, and has a turnover rate of 41%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. On the downside, there were six concerns identified in recent inspections, including not following fluid restrictions for a resident with acute heart failure and failing to document critical health assessments accurately. Overall, while Preston Residence has strong ratings and staffing, families should be aware of the recent compliance issues.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Pennsylvania
#102/653
Top 15%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% 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 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

Jun 2025 3 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 upon clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate Minimum Data Set...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate Minimum Data Set Assessments were completed for one of 12 residents reviewed (Resident 14). Findings include: Review of Resident 14's clinical record revealed diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease (failure of kidney function to remove toxins from the blood). Review of Resident 14's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident needs) dated Mach 17, 2025 failed to reveal Resident 14's diagnosis of End Stage Renal Disease. Interview with Licensed Employee E3 on June 12, 2025, at 11:43 a.m. confirmed Resident 14's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], was inaccurately completed. 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical Records
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 review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that fluid restriction physician's orders were followed for one of one residents reviewed. (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that fluid restriction physician's orders were followed for one of one residents reviewed. (Resident 10) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Diets and Menus, Subject: Fluid Restrictions revised 5/2023 revealed Nursing will document fluid restrictions, intake and output as per nursing policy and procedures or as per physician orders. Review of Resident 10's clinical record revealed diagnoses including acute congestive heart failure(sudden and severe condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs, causing fluid buildup in the lungs and other parts of the body), and acute kidney failure (a sudden and significant loss of kidney function). Review of Resident 10's physician's orders revealed an order started on May 26, 2025, of fluid restriction of 2000cc, Split between Nursing (1000cc) and Dining (1000cc) daily. 7-3:450cc, 3-11:450cc,11-7:100cc. Review of Resident 10's Medication Administration Record revealed Resident 10's daily fluid allotment was not recorded from June 1, 2025, to June 10 2025. Interview with Director of Nursing on June 12, 2025, at approximately 12:24pm confirmed that the physician orders were not followed for fluid restriction. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based upon clinical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure non-pharmaceutical interventions were completed prior to the administration of pain medication for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based upon clinical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure non-pharmaceutical interventions were completed prior to the administration of pain medication for one resident and failed to ensure side effects were being monitored during the use of anti-psychotic medication for one resident (Resident 4 and Resident 11). Findings include: Review of Resident 4's physician orders revealed an order for Oxycodone (pain medication) 10 milligrams (mg) to be administered every eight hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. Review of Resident 4's June Medication Administration Record revealed Resident 4 received Oxycodone 10 mg on June 1, 2025, June 2, 2025, June 3, 2025, June 6, 2025, and June 10, 2025. Further review of Resident 4's clinical record failed to reveal evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions were attempted prior to the administration of Oxycodone 10 mg. Interview with the Director of Nursing on June 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. confirmed that non-pharmaceutical interventions were not attempted prior to the administration of Resident 4's pain medication. Review of Resident 11's diagnosis list revealed a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), unspecified mood disorders and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident 11' s physician's orders revealed an order started on Decemebr 5, 2024 for Quetiapine (anti-psychotic medication) 25 milligrams 1 tablet at bedtime. Review of Resident 11's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for May 2025 and June 2025 revealed Resident 11 received Quetiapine 25 milligrams each day at bedtime. Review of Resident 11's MAR and progress notes revealed the facility failed to ensure that side effects were being monitored during the use of anti-psychotic medication. Interview with the Director of Nursing on June 13, 2025, at 9:18 a.m. confirmed there was no documentation monitoring the side effects of the anti-psychotic medication when administered to Resident 11. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services Previously cited 7/11/2024
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
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 and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (infection control prevention designed to reduce transmission of mu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (infection control prevention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) were in place for residents requiring enhanced barrier precautions for two of 19 residents (Residents 69 and 120). Findings include: Interview with Resident 69 on July 9, 2024, at 11:10 a.m. revealed the resident had a suprapubic catheter (tube that drains urine through the bladder via an incision in the abdomen). Observation of Resident 120 on July 9, 2024, at 10:50 a.m. revealed the resident had a central line (catheter that goes into a vein that leads to the heart) and a left knee surgical wound. Observations of Resident 69 and 120's rooms on all four days of the survey failed to reveal personal protective equipment located outside the rooms or signage indicating that the residents were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. Interview with the Director of Nursing on July 11, 2024, at 10:50 a.m. confirmed that Residents 69 and 120 were not on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing service
Aug 2023 2 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 review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to treat resident with dignity and respect during the lunch meal for three out of 6 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to treat resident with dignity and respect during the lunch meal for three out of 6 residents ( R8, R9, and R13). Finding include: Review of facility policy labeled Feeding Policy, dated January 2023, outlined the procedure for feeding a resident stating, 20. If the resident must be fed, make yourself comfortable. Sit infront of the resident . Maintain eye contact. Observations on August 28, 2023, at 12:10 p.m. revealed registered employee E3, standing at a back table with residents R8, R9, and R10 seated around the end of the table. Registered Nurse, Employee E3 stood in between residents R9 and R13, feeding a small bite to R9 and then to R13, moved the chair out of the way and fed R8, conducted while in a standing position. This continued throughout the meal moving from one resident to the next without sitting down. Observations on August 29, 2023, at 12:10 p.m. revealed Registered Nurse, Employee E3, standing at a back table while feeding the residents in the same manner as observed on August 28, 2023. Interviews with the Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing on August 30, 2023 at 11:15 a.m. confirmed that the staff should sit to feed the residents. The facility failed to treat the residents with dignity and respect during the lunch meal for residents R8, R9, and R13. 28 Pa Code: 201.29(j) Resident's rights
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 interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflect the resident's status for one of 17 residents reviewed (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflect the resident's status for one of 17 residents reviewed (Resident R3). Findings include: Review of Resident R3's clinical record revealed a nursing note dated May 16, 2023, indicating the resident was discharged to another facility. Further review of the clinical record revealed a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS-periodic assessment of the residents care needs) was not completed. Interview conducted with licensed Employee E4 on August 30, 2023 at 10:55 a.m. revealed the discharge MDS assessment was not completed. The facility failed to ensure assesments accurately reflect the resident status for Resident R3. 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c) Nursing services 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.
  • • 41% 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 Preston Residence's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PRESTON RESIDENCE 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 Preston Residence Staffed?

CMS rates PRESTON RESIDENCE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Preston Residence?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at PRESTON RESIDENCE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 6 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Preston Residence?

PRESTON RESIDENCE 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 38 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 66% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST GROVE, Pennsylvania.

How Does Preston Residence Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, PRESTON RESIDENCE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Preston Residence?

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 Preston Residence Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PRESTON RESIDENCE 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 Preston Residence Stick Around?

PRESTON RESIDENCE has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Preston Residence Ever Fined?

PRESTON RESIDENCE 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 Preston Residence on Any Federal Watch List?

PRESTON RESIDENCE 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.