ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Rouse Warren County Home in Youngsville, Pennsylvania, has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack of nursing homes. Ranked #351 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, it is in the bottom half, but it is the best option among the three nursing homes in Warren County. The facility is improving, showing a decrease in reported issues from six in 2024 to four in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly below the state average, indicating that staff generally remain long-term. However, there are concerns, as the facility has faced nearly $23,000 in fines, which is higher than many others in the state, and serious incidents have occurred, including a lack of supervision that led to two residents experiencing a physical altercation, resulting in one needing emergency treatment for a laceration. Additionally, there were issues with maintaining respiratory care equipment, which could increase the risk of infection.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Pennsylvania
- #351/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $22,967 in fines. Higher than 51% of Pennsylvania facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 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
-
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 (44%)
4 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to appropriate...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records and facility policy, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately maintain respiratory care equipment and promote ...
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 review of a facility policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to safely store food containers in the main kitchen and ensure that food was stored ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies and grievances, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provi...
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
Based on review of facility policy and clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to include reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's p...
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 review of facility policyand manufacturer's guidelines, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly dated when opene...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate clinical records for two of 24 residents reviewed (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and/or resident representative with a written notice of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of clinical records, the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
9 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies, clinical records, and facility investigation, and staff interviews, it was determined that...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 review of facility policies, clinical records, and facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that...
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
Based on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment for two of six units (100 hall and 300 hall). ...
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
Based on review of Minimum Data Set (MDS - federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care), clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined t...
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 review of facility policy and clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop an individualized comprehensive care plan to accurately reflect the ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ...
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
Based on review of clinical records and facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an oxygen humidifier container was filled and changed ...
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
Based on review of policy and clinical records, observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services regarding a urinary catheter (a tu...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, facility documentation, clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide accurate and timely documentation related to offe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a change in condition and/or treatment for one of five re...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $22,967 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Rouse Warren County Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME 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 Rouse Warren County Home Staffed?
CMS rates ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rouse Warren County Home?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Rouse Warren County Home?
ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 176 certified beds and approximately 122 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in YOUNGSVILLE, Pennsylvania.
How Does Rouse Warren County Home Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rouse Warren County Home?
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 Rouse Warren County Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME 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 Rouse Warren County Home Stick Around?
ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Rouse Warren County Home Ever Fined?
ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME has been fined $22,967 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,309. 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 Rouse Warren County Home on Any Federal Watch List?
ROUSE WARREN COUNTY HOME 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.