Exceptional Care For Children
11 Independence Way, Newark, DE 19713 · Non profit - Corporation · 46 certified beds · (302) 894-1001 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.6% | 12.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.6% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 13.6% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.2% | 21.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.5% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.0% | 20.2% | 21.2% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.7% | 10.7% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that for four (R13, R21, R24, and R27) out of twenty-two sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed. Findings include:According to the CDC (Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs, Updated July 12, 2022),Nursing home residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices, such as catheters, tracheostomies (breathing tubes), or feeding tubes, are more likely to get and carry these germs.Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are designed to reduce the spread of these germs.EBP includes the use of a gown and gloves when providing high contact care to these residents. High contact care includes dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, device care, and wound care.Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Enhanced Barrier Precautions, last reviewed 1/26, revealed that . Enhanced Barrier Precautions are implemented for all Exceptional Care for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R41) out of one resident reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to have evidence of notification to law enforcement after a controlled medication was not returned to the facility. Findings include:Review of R41's clinical record revealed:7/30/2024 - R41 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy.1/23/26 - An order entered in R41's clinical record documented, diazepam - Schedule IV [controlled substance] tablet.Special instructions: Give every 6 hours as needed for increased spasticity, prior to transport.4/3/26 1:53 PM - A Nursing Progress Note documented, [FM1] arrived to pick up [R41] around 1230 [12:30 PM] for LOA [leave of absence].[R41] left the facility.with all necessary equipment, medications, and tube feeding.4/3/26 - A facility document entitled, Resident Leave of Absence Request and Agreement signed by FM1 documented, .Any unused medication must be returned to the facility upon the resident's return.Medication Name: diazepam Dose: 3 mg…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-17 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R1, R2 and R3) out of three residents reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure that the physician conducted the required visits. Findings include: 1. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 12/28/24 - R1 was admitted to the facility to the facility. 12/28/24 - R1 was examined by a physician and a Health Appraisal Visit documented the encounter in the electronic medical record (EMR). 4/10/24 - R1 was examined by a physician and a Health Appraisal Visit documented the encounter in the EMR. R1 went 104 days between physician visits. During the first 90 days of an admission to a skilled nursing facility, by regulation a patient must be examined every 30 days. 2. Review of R2's clinical record revealed: 5/1/18 - admission to the facility. 7/25/23 - R2 was examined by the physician and a Health Appraisal Visit documented the encounter in the EMR. 11/14/23 - R2 was examined by the physician and a Health Appraisal Visit documented the encounter in the EMR. R2 went 112 days between physician visits…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and review of the clinical record and other documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R3) out of one resident reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that R3, a non-verbal, medically challenged dependent teenager, was free from physical and verbal abuse from a staff person on 9/9/23, which caused R3 to cry. Based on observations of staff interactions with R3 during the current survey, staff interviews, record review since the 9/9/23 incident and consideration of the reasonable person concept revealed that R3 did not have a psychosocial outcome. Review and verification of the facility's immediate actions and no further incidents, the facility was in substantial compliance as of 9/26/23. The 9/9/23 incident was past non-compliance. Findings include: R3's clinical record revealed: 6/14/17 - R3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, megalencephaly syndrome (chromosomal abnormality), chronic respiratory failure and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-05-28 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for four (R3, R21, R28, R33) out of eight residents reviewed for resident assessments, the facility failed to accurately report the resident's status. Findings include: According to the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Version 3.0 Manual, October 2023, page A-20, under A1005 Ethnicity and A1010 Race, the Steps for Assessment: Interview Instructions . 2. If the resident is unable to respond, the assessor may ask a family member, significant other, and/or guardian/legally authorized representative . 4. Respondents should be offered the option of selecting one or more ethnic [and racial] designations . 5. Only use medical record documentation to code A1005, Ethnicity [and A1010 Ethnicity] if the resident is unable to respond and no family member, significant other, and/or guardian/legally authorized representative provides a response for this item . Code X, Resident unable to respond: if the resident is unable to respond. In cases where the resident is unable to respond and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in DE
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Delaware Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 08A015. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-19, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.