Home / Pennsylvania / Plymouth Meeting
845 Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 · Montgomery County · (610) 279-7300
153 certified beds, about 145 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395019 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 12, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since April 2024, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $17,664 in the last three years; the largest was $17,664, and the latest is dated April 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.64 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
42.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Aristacare, an affiliated group of 9 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with resident and staff, review of facility provided documentation and review of policy, it was determined that facility failed to ensure that one of six residents reviewed was free of physical abuse during respiratory care. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on hospital and clinical record reviews, interviews with staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician and the responsible party of a significant change in the resident's medical condition and potential need to alter treatment for one of two residents reviewed. (Resident Cl1)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, interviews with staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that for one of two residents reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that each resident had a care plan developed within the 48 hours of the resident's admission that included the minimum health care information necessary to properly care for a resident. (Resident Cl1)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation, clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the Facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect by exhibiting a pattern of neglect of medically fragile residents. Residents R2, R25, R45, R47, and R100 who are totally dependent on staff for all of their needs were not provided incontinence care, ileostomy care, and lack of investigation of bruising with an unknown origin for the five of 29 residents reviewed. This failure to provide necessary goods and services to residents put residents at risk of serious health complications and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, review of CDC requirements, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an effective Infection Prevention and Control Program including the utilization of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during high-contact resident care and failed to adequately educate staff on evidence-based infection control practices for residents on four of four nursing units (NPRU Nursing Unit, NLC Nursing Unit, PLC1 Nursing Unit, and PLC2 Nursing Unit). This failure placed residents at high risk to health and was identified as an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record and facility documented grievance summary reviews, interviews with staff and residents and review of facility policy and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were able to identify the grievance officer, each resident was given a copy of the grievance policy and ensure that the grievance policy was in place to process grievances promptly, notified each resident of the progress and resolution of their concerns for thirteen of fifteen residents reviewed. (Residents R120, R41, R27, R17, R44, R46, R53, R72, R90, R128, R141, R59 and R109)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility provided documentation, review of facility policy, review of clinical records and interview with staff and residents, it was determined that facility did not ensure allegations were properly investigated to prevent and correct alleged violations for two of 29 residents reviewed (Resident R83 and R100)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policy, review of clinical records, and interview with staff and residents, it was determined that facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and implemented regarding behaviors, refusals, bathing, activities, and toileting for three of 29 residents reviewed (Resident R131, R26 and R84). Review of facility policy 'Care Plans -Comprehensive,' unknown revision date, states that an individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident. Further review of policy indicates that each resident's comprehensive care plan has been designed to: a. incorporate identified problem areas; b. incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; e. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of policy, review of facility provided documentation and review of clinical record, it was determined that facility did not ensure resident safety related to shower thermometers in three of four showers and for the emergency pull system for one of three reviewed and did not ensure to provide adequate supervision to avoid accident during hygiene care (Resident R2)Review of facility policy 'Abuse' policy, reviewed on January 21, 2020, defines neglect as failure of facility , its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Review of Resident R2's clinical record revealed medical diagnosis of anoxic brain damage, contracture of bilateral wrists and hands, muscle weakness, reduced mobility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of policy, review of facility provided documentation and interview with staff, it was determined that facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care for two of 29 residents reviewed (Resident R25, and R131)Review of facility policy 'Incontinence Care,' indicates that it is its purpose to ensure that all residents who are incontinent of urine, feces, or both are kept clean, receive timely, dignified, and appropriate incontinence care aimed at maintaining skin integrity, promoting comfort, and preserving resident dignity while preventing infection and complications. Observations on morning of Sunday, February 8, 2026, in room [ROOM NUMBER]-D, Resident R131 was sitting in wheelchair with strong urine odor present in the room and bed linens stripped off of bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the dietary services for the residents, meal tray delivery by the nursing staff and food and nutrition department staff, reviews of dietary policies and procedures, interviews with residents and staff and reviews of meal tray evaluations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that foods being served to the residents were palatable and appetizing temperatures for one of three nursing units reviewed. (200 nursing unit)
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records, job descriptions, facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) did not effectively manage the facility to make certain that proper procedures were followed in the facility related to failure to ensure residents are free from abuse and neglect relating to bruising of unknown origin, emptying ileostomy bag, wound care and incontinent care for six of 29 residents reviewed. (Resident R2, R25, R26, R47, R45, R100). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 vaccination status of employees was tracked and documented in accordance with regulatory requirements. Review of facility records revealed that the facility was unable to provide documentation demonstrating that it tracked and recorded the COVID-19 vaccination status of facility staff, including whether staff were fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, had approved exemptions, or had pending vaccination status as required by regulation. Interview with the Infection Preventionist, Employee E12 on February 8, 2026, at approximately 1:40 p.m., Employee E12 confirmed the facility did not maintain a system to consistently track and document employees' COVID-19 vaccination status in accordance with regulatory requirements. 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (1) Management 28 Pa. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the operations within the food and nutrition department, interviews with staff, it was determined that essential equipment used to maintain the air temperature in the main kitchen was not fully functioning. Observations of the main kitchen at 9:45 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., on February 8, 2026, revealed that all dietary staff were wearing knit hats and sweatshirts while working in the main kitchen. The dietary staff were reporting that it was extremely cold in the kitchen over the past two months. Interview with a dietary aide, Employee E 20 revealed that it was a necessity to wear extra layers of clothing everyday while preforming dietary tasks due to the air temperature inside the kitchen presenting an uncomfortable work environment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the physical environment throughout the facility, reviews of pest control visits and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure that the building was pest free, in one of three nursing units (200 nursing unit) and in the food and nutrition department.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that this facility failed to ensure that intravenous fluids were administered in a timely manner to one resident for whom the IV fluids have been ordered. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical record, and interview with staff, it was determined that facility failed to develop and implement a care plan related to hygiene care for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R2)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident and resident representative receive written notice of the facility bed-hold policy at the time of a facility-initiated transfer to a hospital for one of 28 residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident R100)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review,and review of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to update and revise a resident care plan realted to a wrist fracture for one of three residents reviewed. (Resident R85)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services with a resident who exhibited a contracture of the hand for one of seven residents reviewed s. (Resident R85)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of care and services, clinical record review, interview with staff, and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that for one of two residents reviewed with enteral nutrition that appropriate and timely treatment, to prevent complications of gastrojejunostomy tube feeding was implemented. (Resident R65)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide culturally competent, trauma informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice, accounting for the resident's past experiences and preferences in order to eliminate and/or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one of 28 residents sampled (Resident R 27)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, interviews with staff and policies and procedure reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of six residents reviewed was being monitored and assesed for continued use of psychotropic medication. (Resident R19)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the food and nutrition services department, interviews with staff, it was determined that essential food service equipment and mechanical devices were not operating efficiently and effectively in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and observations, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plan was updated to reflect changes in care needs for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, interviews with staff and and policy and procedure review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were follow for one of ten residents reviewed. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews with staff and and policy and procedure review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a doppler study was completed as ordered by the physician for one of ten residents reviewed. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of physican orders and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete documetation related to blood pressure for one of ten residents. (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated emergency transfers and discharges for five of six residents reviewed (Residents R1, R2, R4, R5 and R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatments and services to promote healing, for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that continence care was provided in a timely manner for one of six residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policies, facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that water temperatures in resident bathroom hand sinks and showers were maintained at a safe temperature for two of two nursing units observed (Unit One and Unit Two). This failure placed residents on Unit One and Unit Two at risk for serious injury from a burn and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. Findings Include: Review of the Water Temperatures, Safety of Policy undated states that tap water . shall be kept within a temperature range to prevent scalding residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that pressure ulcer prevention measures were followed as ordered by the physician for one of one resident with pressure ulcer reviewed. (Resident R69)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care services consistent with professional standards of practice for three of 34 residents reviewed. (Residents R38, Resident R41, Resident R390). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Disposable Equipment Changes undated states, Policy Statement- Respiratory care disposable equipment changes are consistent with manufacturer's recommendations, CDC guidelines and per Respiratory Care Clinical Practice Guidelines. Purpose-To establish guidelines for consistent changes of disposable equipment. To limit the occurrence of equipment related infection. To assure disposable equipment maintains both its physical integrity and proper function. Please note: All equipment (disposable/Non-disposable) including: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing failed to effectively manage the facility related to hot water temperatures which resulted in Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents records were accurately documented for one of 27 residents reviewed (Resident R69)
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy and clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention practice during medication administration for two of 27 residents reviewed. (Resident R6 and Resident R90)
3 fire safety citations on file: 2 on February 12, 2026, 1 on February 27, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 19, 2024 | Fine | $17,664 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.64 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.30 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.20 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.5% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 56.5% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 7.10 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.77 on weekdays and 4.30 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.77 in April to June 2025 to 4.64 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.64 | 0.47 | 4.77 | 4.30 | 12.6% | 0 of 90 | 145 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.75 | 0.47 | 4.92 | 4.33 | 14.1% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.94 | 0.50 | 5.14 | 4.44 | 17.3% | 0 of 92 | 139 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.77 | 0.53 | 4.90 | 4.46 | 17.2% | 0 of 91 | 143 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.6 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.2 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.0 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Aristacare at Meadow Springs's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (25.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
25.2% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 45 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 17 eligible stays.
8.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 45 eligible stays.
32.5% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 40 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 110 residents counted.
3.7% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 110 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 8 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: PLYMOUTH HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, LLC. CMS links this home to Aristacare, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shalom Ubrocha Eh LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 10% | 04/01/2024 |
| Cohen, Chaya | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 03/01/2010 |
| Greenberger, Sidney | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Klein, Zvi | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Weisel, Morris | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 03/01/2010 |
| Greenberger, Sidney | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Klein, Zvi | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Greenberger, Sidney | General partnership interest | Individual | 07/01/2006 | |
| Klein, Zvi | General partnership interest | Individual | 07/01/2006 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living residences and personal care homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Pennsylvania licence record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.