ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #257 out of 653 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 22 in Luzerne County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues reported decreasing from 11 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a rating of 4/5 stars and a turnover rate equal to the state average of 46%, suggesting stability among the staff. Notably, there have been no fines recorded, indicating compliance with regulations. However, there are some weaknesses to consider. Recent inspections found several areas of concern, including failures in medication record accuracy for four residents and not following a care plan for pressure-relieving measures for one resident, which could lead to skin breakdown. Additionally, the facility did not consistently follow physician orders for medication administration for four residents, which raises questions about adherence to care standards. Overall, while there are positive aspects to this facility, families should weigh these concerns when making their decision.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #257/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
6 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 a review of clinical records, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), and staff interview, it was determined the faci...
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
**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 provide nursing servic...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to mo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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, select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 interviews, it was determined the attending physician failed to act upon pharmac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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, controlled medication records, select facility policy, and a staff interview, it was dete...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff and resident interview, it was determined ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
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 provided individualized...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews it was determined the facility repeatedly failed to implement a resident's care plan for pressure relieving measures for one resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide perso...
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 observation, a review of clinical records, and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, review of the minutes from Resident Council Meetings, scheduled facility mealtimes, and select facility policy, and resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facil...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, facility policy, and the facility's infection assessment tool, and staff interview it was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
5 deficiencies
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 observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping services to maintain...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 provide care and services ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, review of clinical records and select facility policy and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary care to prevent complications for one r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed...
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.
- • 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing Staffed?
CMS rates ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING during 2023 to 2025. These included: 23 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing?
ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING 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 133 certified beds and approximately 114 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WILKES BARRE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing?
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 Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING 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 3-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 Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing Stick Around?
ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing Ever Fined?
ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING 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 Allied Services Meade Street Skilled Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?
ALLIED SERVICES MEADE STREET SKILLED NURSING 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.