Phoebe Berks
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Wernersville, Pennsylvania.
- Location
- 1 Heidelberg Drive, Wernersville, Pennsylvania 19565
- CMS Provider Number
- 395880
- Inspections on file
- 18
- Latest survey
- May 13, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Phoebe Berks during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Phoebe Berks Health Care Center failed to respond to call bells in a timely manner, affecting seven residents who required assistance with daily activities. Residents with conditions like radiculopathy, congestive heart failure, and Parkinson's disease experienced significant delays, with some waiting over an hour for help. The facility's administrator confirmed these delays, which exceeded the expected 15-minute response time.
The facility failed to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to two residents or their representatives. The baseline care plans were developed on the dates of their admission, but there was no evidence that the required summaries were provided. This was confirmed during an interview with the Administrator.
The facility did not meet the required nurse aide (NA) to resident ratios over a 21-day period. The day shift ratio of one NA per ten residents was not met on several occasions, as well as the evening shift ratio of one NA per eleven residents and the night shift ratio of one NA per fifteen residents. These deficiencies were identified through a review of nursing schedules.
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for two residents, neglecting to include interventions for vision impairment despite it being identified in their assessments. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the oversight.
A resident with congestive heart failure and osteoporosis fell after requesting assistance to stand, which was not provided by the nurse aide. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate the incident and address inconsistencies in staff accounts.
Delayed Call Bell Response Affects Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
Phoebe Berks Health Care Center was found to be non-compliant with certain requirements of 42 CFR Part 483, Subpart B, and the 28 Pa. Code during a series of surveys conducted on May 1, 2025. The facility failed to uphold resident rights by not responding to call bells in a timely manner, which is essential for providing care and services that respect each resident's dignity and preferences. This deficiency affected seven out of 18 sampled residents, who experienced significant delays in receiving assistance for their activities of daily living. The clinical records of the affected residents revealed various medical conditions that necessitated timely assistance. For instance, Resident 45 had radiculopathy and muscle weakness, requiring help with toileting and dressing. Similarly, Resident 54, who had congestive heart failure and late-onset Alzheimer's disease, needed extensive assistance for transfers and daily activities. Other residents, such as Resident 56 with post-polio syndrome and Resident 73 with Parkinson's disease, also required significant support from staff, which was delayed due to the untimely response to call bells. Interviews with the residents and a review of the facility's electronic call bell logs confirmed the delays. Residents reported waiting 30 minutes or more for assistance, with specific instances of prolonged waits documented in the facility's Device Activity Report. For example, Resident 77 waited 168 minutes on one occasion, and Resident 54 waited 91 minutes on another. The facility's administrator acknowledged these delays, which exceeded the expected response time of 15 minutes, confirming the deficiency in meeting the required standards for resident care and dignity.
Plan Of Correction
1. The facility maintenance department will conduct a review of 100% of all assigned call bell pagers in the center to ensure all are programmed and fully operational by 5/31/2025. 2. The Director of Nursing/designee will educate all healthcare center staff on the pager protocol and call bell policy by 6/15/2025. 3. The nursing supervisor/designee will conduct random audits of pagers to ensure all assigned staff have operational pagers and that they are in use. The frequency of audits will be conducted at 3 per shift for four weeks, then 2 per shift for 4 weeks, and 10 per week for 1 month. The results of the audit will be reviewed by the Nursing Home Administrator with the QAPI committee for further recommendation or action. 4. Call bell response times will be audited. Audits of random call bells will be conducted at 3 per shift for four weeks, then 2 per shift for 4 weeks, and 10 per week for 1 month. The results of the audit will be reviewed by the Nursing Home Administrator with the QAPI committee for further recommendation or action. 5. Call bell audits will be reviewed by visiting Administrator/designee with resident council for three months and the residents' feedback will be reviewed by the NHA/designee with the QAPI committee for further recommendation or action.
Failure to Provide Baseline Care Plan Summary
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to the residents or their representatives for two of the sampled residents. According to the facility's policy, a baseline care plan should be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission and must include necessary healthcare information such as initial goals, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services, and PASARR recommendations if applicable. Additionally, the policy requires that a written summary of this baseline care plan be provided to the resident and/or their representative. For Resident 17, who was admitted on April 10, 2025, and Resident 64, who was admitted on January 22, 2025, the baseline care plans were developed on the respective dates of their admission. However, there was no evidence to support that the facility provided these residents or their representatives with a summary of the baseline care plan that included all the required components. This deficiency was confirmed during an interview with the Administrator on April 30, 2025.
Plan Of Correction
1. A comprehensive care plan review was completed with resident/responsible party 64 on 5/14/25. 2. Social Services will conduct a care plan review in a manner that can be fully understood with resident 17 by 5/31/2025. 3. The Director of Nursing/designee will educate all licensed nurses by 6/15/2025 on the requirement for all residents/responsible parties to receive a summary of their baseline care plan. 4. The Director of Nursing/designee will conduct an audit of 100% of residents admitted for 4 weeks, then 50% of residents for four weeks, and 25% of residents for 4 weeks to ensure they or their responsible parties have received a summary of their baseline care plan. The results of the audit will be reviewed by Director of Nursing/designee with the QAPI committee for further recommendation or action.
Non-Compliance with Nurse Aide Staffing Ratios
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comply with the mandated nurse aide (NA) to resident ratios over a 21-day period from April 9 through 29, 2025. Specifically, the facility did not meet the required ratio of one NA per ten residents during the day shift on April 10, 15, and 20, 2025. Additionally, the evening shift ratio of one NA per eleven residents was not met on April 11 and 23, 2025. Furthermore, the night shift ratio of one NA per fifteen residents was not adhered to on April 10, 13, 20, 22, and 29, 2025. These deficiencies were identified through a review of the nursing schedules, indicating a failure to provide adequate staffing levels as per the regulatory requirements effective July 1, 2024.
Plan Of Correction
1. The daily nursing facility schedule will be reviewed by the Administrator and/or Director of Nursing to ensure that required staffing ratios are scheduled and met. 2. The scheduler and nursing supervisors will be educated by 5/31/25 on the nurse/aide ratios as of 7/1/2024. 3. An audit of schedules/timecards - All 3 shifts, 2 days a week for 2 months will be conducted. Results of the audit will be reported by the NHA/DON to the QAPI committee for review and further recommendation.
Failure to Address Vision Impairment in Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to meet the needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for two residents. Resident 47, admitted with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, had impaired vision requiring corrective lenses, as noted in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. However, there was no evidence that interventions to address this vision impairment were included in the care plan. Similarly, Resident 60, admitted with diagnoses including a risk for impaired vision, optic nerve damage (glaucoma), an abnormal gait, and a history of falling, also had no interventions for vision impairment included in the care plan, despite it being noted in the MDS Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that these care areas were not addressed in the current care plans for both residents.
Failure to Investigate Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate a fall involving a resident with diagnoses including congestive heart failure and osteoporosis. The resident, who was at risk for falls due to muscle weakness and required staff assistance for activities of daily living, was found on the floor by a nurse. The nurse aide present at the time claimed the resident 'lowered to the ground' and did not fall. However, the resident stated she had asked for help to stand and was not assisted, leading to her fall. Facility documentation and staff statements revealed inconsistencies regarding the incident, with the resident asserting that the aide did not support her as needed. Further review showed that the facility's interdisciplinary team noted the resident was assisted to stand using a walker and a recliner chair, and the aide attempted to provide incontinence care during this time. Another nurse aide corroborated the resident's account, stating the resident had told her that the aide let her fall. Despite these discrepancies, there was no documented evidence that the facility thoroughly investigated the incident to determine the exact circumstances and implement appropriate interventions. The only intervention noted was the placement of a 'call don't fall' sign, which did not address the root cause of the fall or the inconsistencies in staff accounts.
Latest citations in Pennsylvania
A resident with dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, residing on a locked unit with a wander guard, was able to leave the secured area by closely following a housekeeper through coded double doors and out a side door without being noticed. Staff did not check for residents before and after exiting the unit, and the resident left the premises, traveled into the community, and purchased food and a drink before being located by local police and returned without injury. The facility’s elopement policy required monitoring for missing residents and initiation of emergency procedures, but these measures were only implemented after the resident was discovered missing and an elopement alarm was activated.
Surveyors observed that dietary staff did not follow the facility’s personal hygiene policy requiring hair restraints, as two dietary employees worked over uncovered food on the tray line with uncovered mustaches. In the same food preparation area, equipment including a large mixer with an uncovered bowl, a Robot-coupe mixer, and a blender were stored and used beneath window frames with peeling paint, and a nearby window blind had dried food debris along its length. Another window frame above a storage rack of meal trays also had peeling paint, demonstrating unsanitary food storage and preparation conditions.
Surveyors determined that the facility failed to provide required written notices of transfers and discharges to multiple residents and/or their representatives, and did not notify the State LTC Ombudsman when residents were transferred to the hospital after changes in condition or left against medical advice. Record reviews showed repeated absence of documentation that residents or responsible parties received written information about the transfers, and that the Ombudsman was informed. The Administrator confirmed that these notifications were not sent.
The facility failed to address repeated grievances regarding slow responses to resident call bells. The grievance policy required acknowledgment and active resolution of both written and verbal complaints, yet multiple residents reported that call bells often went unanswered for more than 30 minutes. Resident council minutes over several consecutive months documented ongoing complaints about delayed call bell response, and grievance records showed multiple similar complaints over an extended period. The DON and the administrator acknowledged a pattern of complaints about slow call bell responses and confirmed that the facility had not responded to these grievances.
Surveyors found that the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two nursing units, noting a shattered clear plastic fire extinguisher cover in a hallway between resident rooms, holes in bathroom walls, a dented and misshaped room entrance doorframe near the floor, a hole in the wall between resident beds, and dented, crumbling wallboard near a bathroom entrance. These conditions were cited under state regulations for licensee responsibility and management.
A deficiency was identified when a resident’s MDS assessment did not accurately reflect the resident’s need for corrective lenses. The resident had a history of diabetes mellitus and falls and was care planned for impaired vision with a requirement for glasses. Despite this, the MDS indicated that no corrective lenses were needed during the look-back period, while direct observation showed the resident wearing glasses, and the Administrator later confirmed the inaccuracy of the MDS documentation.
A resident with chronic kidney disease and DM was documented on the MDS as alert and frequently incontinent of urine, and the CAA indicated that urinary incontinence should be addressed in the care plan. Review of the resident’s current care plan showed no interventions related to urinary incontinence, and the DON confirmed there was no documented evidence that this identified care area was included in the plan.
A resident with chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathies, and muscle weakness, who had no cognitive impairment and required substantial staff assistance for showers and total assistance for transfers, was scheduled to receive showers twice weekly on the evening shift. Over a 30-day period, there was no documentation that showers were provided, offered, or refused, and the resident reported not having had a shower since admission. The DON confirmed the absence of documentation that shower care was offered or provided, resulting in a deficiency related to nursing services and ADL care.
Surveyors found that staff did not follow multiple physician orders for three residents. A resident with diabetes received ordered insulin even when blood glucose readings were below the ordered hold parameter. Another resident with cerebral palsy, DM, and heart failure had repeated significant overnight weight gains without evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and CKD had ordered CBC and CMP lab tests that were not documented as completed. The DON confirmed there was no documentation that these physician orders were carried out.
Staff failed to follow facility policy and physician orders requiring documentation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI’s) before administering PRN oxycodone for two residents. One resident with osteoarthritis, hip pain, and diabetes had orders for NPI documentation each shift and PRN oxycodone for moderate to severe pain, yet received the narcotic multiple times in a month without any recorded attempt of NPI’s beforehand. Another resident with a history of stroke, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis also had orders to document NPI’s prior to PRN pain medication, but similarly received PRN oxycodone several times without documentation that NPI’s were tried first, resulting in noncompliance with state pharmacy and nursing service regulations.
Failure to Prevent Elopement From Secured Unit
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident with unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety who was admitted to the facility in November 2025 and resided on a locked, secured unit requiring a code to exit. The facility had a written "Wandering and Elopements" policy that directed staff, when a resident was missing, to initiate the elopement/missing resident emergency procedure, determine if the resident was on an authorized leave, search the building and premises if not authorized to leave, and notify administration, the resident’s representative, the attending physician, and law enforcement if the resident was not located. On the date of the incident, the resident closely followed a housekeeper through double doors on the ground floor into a back hallway and then out a side door, leaving the secured unit without authorization. The housekeeper was unaware that the resident had followed through the door, and staff failed to ensure the resident’s safety by not checking for residents before and after exiting the unit. An elopement alarm was later activated after the resident was found to be unaccounted for on the secured unit, and the facility’s established protocols were then initiated, including notification of local law enforcement. The resident was subsequently located off premises by local police, sitting in a relaxed manner, conversing appropriately with officers, holding a beverage, and with no visible injuries, and he denied pain or discomfort. Facility documentation showed that the resident had been able to travel far enough to purchase food and a drink at a restaurant, as evidenced by a receipt from a nearby McDonald’s. A progress note recorded that the resident had been noted not on the unit, an immediate search was conducted, administration and proper authorities were notified, and the resident was returned safely, with a skin check completed and the resident later observed in his room eating dinner. In an interview, the resident stated that it was taking too long to get out of the building, that he waited for an opportunity and took it, and that he wanted to leave and go back to his place. In a separate interview, the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that staff failed to ensure the resident’s safety by not checking for residents before and after exiting the unit, leading to the elopement from the secured environment.
Unsanitary Food Storage and Staff Hygiene Practices in Dietary Department
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store and handle food in a sanitary manner in the dietary department in accordance with its own policy and professional standards. The facility’s “Personal Hygiene” policy dated February 2, 2026, required all staff to wear hair restraints to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food. During observation of the lunch meal service tray line on April 15, 2026, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:03 p.m., two dietary employees were observed working directly over uncovered food on the tray line with uncovered mustaches. In the same area, the window frame above the shelf where a large mixer with an uncovered bowl, a Robot-coupe mixer, and a blender were stored had peeling paint, while the Robot-coupe mixer and blender were actively being used to prepare resident food. Additionally, the blind in this window frame had dried food debris along its length, and another window frame above a storage rack of resident meal trays also had peeling paint. These conditions were cited under 42 CFR 483.60(i) Food Safety Requirements and 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee, and had been previously cited on March 26, 2025. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were described in the report; the deficiency focused on environmental and staff hygiene practices in the dietary department during food preparation and tray line service.
Failure to Provide Required Written Transfer Notices and Ombudsman Notification
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide required written notifications of transfers and discharges to residents and/or their representatives, and failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for six residents who were transferred out of the facility. Clinical record review showed that one resident was transferred to the hospital after a change in condition on December 26, 2025, without documented evidence that the resident or responsible party received written information regarding the transfer or that a copy of the transfer notice was sent to the Ombudsman. Another resident was transferred to the hospital after a change in condition on January 9, 2026, with no documented evidence that the Ombudsman was notified of the transfer. Additional record reviews revealed that three more residents were transferred to the hospital after changes in condition on March 30, 2026, and March 12, 2026, without documentation that the residents and/or their responsible parties or legal representatives were provided written information regarding the transfers, or that the Ombudsman was notified. One resident left the facility against medical advice on February 3, 2026, and there was no documented evidence that the Ombudsman was notified of this transfer. In an interview on April 17, 2026, the Administrator confirmed that notifications of transfers were not sent to the residents and/or their representatives and that written notices of the transfers and discharge were not sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
Failure to Address Repeated Grievances About Slow Call Bell Response
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address ongoing grievances related to slow response times to resident call bells, as required by its grievance policy. The policy, last reviewed on February 24, 2026, stated that grievances could be either formal written complaints or verbal complaints to staff, and that the facility was to acknowledge and actively work toward resolution of such complaints. During a confidential resident group interview on April 14, 2026, all four participating residents reported that call bells were answered slowly, often taking more than 30 minutes. Review of resident council minutes from September 8, 2025, through December 11, 2025, showed repeated complaints about slow call bell responses at each monthly meeting, with no evidence that any resident council minutes were recorded in 2026. Additionally, review of resident grievances from October 31, 2025, through March 23, 2026, revealed multiple complaints about slow call bell responses on several dates in late 2025 and early 2026. In an interview on April 17, 2026, the DON and Nursing Home Administrator confirmed there was a pattern of complaints about slow call bell responses and that the facility had failed to respond to those grievances. These findings demonstrate that the facility did not honor residents’ rights to have grievances acknowledged and addressed, despite repeated verbal and written complaints documented through resident council minutes and the grievance process.
Damaged Walls, Doorframes, and Fire Extinguisher Cover Compromise Safe, Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment on two of five nursing units, specifically the [NAME] and [NAME] units. During observations conducted over two days, surveyors noted that the clear plastic fire extinguisher cover in the hallway between rooms 135 and 137 was shattered. In one resident bathroom, there were holes on the left and right walls, and the doorframe at the entrance to another resident room was dented and misshaped near the floor. Additionally, there was a hole in the wall between the beds in another resident room, and the wallboard at the bottom of the wall to the right of the entrance to a bathroom in yet another room was dented and crumbling. These environmental deficiencies were directly observed in resident care areas and common hallways and were cited under 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) regarding the responsibility of the licensee and 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(2.1) regarding management responsibilities.
Inaccurate MDS Documentation of Resident’s Need for Corrective Lenses
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a resident’s current status. Clinical record review showed that Resident 139 had diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and a history of falls, and the resident required glasses to correct impaired vision. The resident’s care plan documented a problem with impaired vision and indicated that glasses were required beginning March 8, 2022. However, the MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented in Section B (Hearing, Speech, and Vision) that the resident did not require corrective lenses during the previous seven days. On observation on April 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., Resident 139 was noted to be wearing glasses. In an interview on April 17, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the MDS assessment for this resident was inaccurate, as it did not reflect the resident’s actual need for and use of corrective lenses during the assessment look-back period.
Failure to Include Urinary Incontinence in Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed an identified care area for one resident. Clinical record review showed that this resident had chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus, and a Minimum Data Set completed on February 20, 2026, documented that the resident was alert and frequently incontinent of urine. The Care Area Assessment summary dated the same day specified that the resident’s urinary incontinence was to be addressed in the care plan. However, review of the current care plan revealed no evidence that interventions for urinary incontinence were included. In an interview on April 17, 2026, at 10:25 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that this identified care area was addressed in the resident’s care plan.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers and Document ADL Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and document assistance with activities of daily living, specifically showering, for one resident who was dependent on staff for this care. The resident was admitted on March 12, 2026, with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathies, and muscle weakness. A Minimum Data Set assessment dated March 19, 2026, showed the resident had no cognitive impairment, required substantial staff assistance for showers, and was totally dependent on staff for transfers. Facility documentation indicated the resident was scheduled to receive showers on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the evening shift. However, the resident reported on April 14, 2026, that they had not had a shower since admission, and review of the clinical record showed no evidence that a shower had been provided, offered, or refused during the previous 30 days. The DON confirmed on April 16, 2026, that there was no documented evidence that showers were offered or provided to this resident. This deficiency was cited under 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) related to nursing services.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Insulin, Weight Monitoring, and Lab Tests
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and follow physicians’ orders for three residents. For one resident with diabetes mellitus, a physician ordered Novolog insulin to be administered in the morning prior to breakfast, with instructions to hold the insulin if the resident’s blood sugar was less than 80 mg/dL. Review of the April 2026 MAR showed that staff administered the insulin on three occasions when the resident’s blood sugar was below 80 mg/dL, contrary to the physician’s order. Another resident with cerebral palsy, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure had a physician’s order to be weighed every night shift and to notify the physician if the resident gained more than 2 lbs in 24 hours or 5 lbs in one week. Clinical records showed multiple instances of significant weight gains over 24-hour periods, including gains of 4.7 lbs, 3.4 lbs, 6 lbs, 2.3 lbs, 5.8 lbs, 4 lbs, 2.4 lbs, and 3.3 lbs, without documented evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and chronic kidney disease had a physician’s order for two blood tests (CBC and CMP), but the clinical record contained no documentation that these lab tests were obtained. The DON confirmed there was no documented evidence that care and services were provided in accordance with these physicians’ orders.
Failure to Document Non-Pharmacological Interventions Before PRN Narcotic Administration
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to follow the facility’s pain management policy and specific physician orders requiring documentation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI’s) and their effectiveness prior to administering as-needed narcotic pain medication for two residents. The policy, last reviewed February 24, 2026, required staff to document NPI’s and their effectiveness for patients receiving pain interventions. For a resident with left knee osteoarthritis, right hip pain, and diabetes, a physician ordered on March 17, 2026, that NPI’s be documented every shift, and on April 6, 2026, ordered oxycodone every four hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. Review of the MAR showed that this resident received as-needed oxycodone 23 times in April 2026 without documented evidence that NPI’s were attempted prior to administration. Another resident with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis had a physician order dated February 7, 2026, directing staff to document NPI’s used before administering as-needed pain medication, and an order dated April 3, 2026, for oxycodone every four hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. MAR review revealed this resident received as-needed oxycodone nine times in April 2026 without documented evidence that NPI’s were attempted prior to administration, in violation of 28 Pa. Code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services and 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
