SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Spiritrust Lutheran The Village at Sprenkle Drive has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating a decent level of care that is slightly above average. It ranks #357 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and #7 out of 14 in York County, meaning there are only a few local options better than this facility. Unfortunately, the facility’s trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 16 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, showing a 0% turnover rate, which is well below the Pennsylvania average, but the facility has received a 2/5 star rating for staffing and a concerning level of fines amounting to $10,000. Recent inspection findings revealed that the facility failed to submit required staffing information and lacked a necessary water management program to prevent contamination, indicating potential risks for residents. While the quality measures rating is excellent at 5/5, the overall picture shows both strengths and significant areas that need improvement.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #357/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $10,000 in fines. Higher than 51% of Pennsylvania facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Pennsylvania. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-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
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 accurately assess the dental status of one of two residents reviewed for dental service...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident representative and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised for one of ...
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 facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide nutritional supplements as ordered by the physician fo...
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
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive cultura...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that five residents have the right to a dignified dining experien...
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, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered plan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, select facility meal ticket review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resi...
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 facility policy reviews, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and utilize kitchen equipment in accordance with professional standards f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview and available documentation review, it was determined that the facility administration failed to ensure care policies were reviewed and approved by the administration and Medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data report and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to electronically su...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
4 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 that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one of 22 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of 22 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was revised to include changes in the reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's Dental Services policy, observations, staff and resident interviews, and record review, it was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
4 deficiencies
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, observation, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received care consistent with professional stand...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review observations, policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory services for one of 24 residents reviewed (...
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 clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure pharmacist recommended irregularities are reviewed and acted upon by the atten...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews, it was determined the facility failed to develop a Water Management Program for the prevention, detection, and control of water-borne contaminants, such as Legionella, a bacteria ...
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.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE 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 Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive Staffed?
CMS rates SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE during 2023 to 2024. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive?
SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE 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 104 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in YORK, Pennsylvania.
How Does Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE 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 Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive Stick Around?
SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE 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 Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive Ever Fined?
SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE has been fined $10,000 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,179. 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 Spiritrust Lutheran The Village At Sprenkle Drive on Any Federal Watch List?
SPIRITRUST LUTHERAN THE VILLAGE AT SPRENKLE DRIVE 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.