Chestnut Grn Hlth Ctr Blakehur

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

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.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

55.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 86 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 82.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 28 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 49 beds and averages 37.5 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.23 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.32 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.81 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.31 to 1.02 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

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.

20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-18 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 7 (#12, #3, #7, #28, #22, #2, #4) of 23 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey. The findings include: The MDS is part of the Resident Assessment Instrument that was Federally mandated in legislation passed in 1986. The MDS is a set of assessment screening items employed as part of a standardized, reproducible, and comprehensive assessment process that ensures each resident's individual needs are identified, that care is planned based on those individualized needs, and that the care is provided as planned to meet the needs of each resident. 1) On 12/17/25 at 10:12 AM a review of Resident #12's medical record was conducted and revealed the MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/9/25 Section M1200C, skin and ulcer/injury treatments, turning/repositioning program was checked as being performed. Review of Resident #12's medical record failed to produce…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — pattern
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  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 medical record review, interview, and review of facility policies and procedures, it was determined the facility failed to 1) timely respond to concerns noted on pharmacy reviews and, 2) have policies and procedures in place for monthly drug regimen review to include time frames for the different steps in the process. This was evident for 5 (#4, #6, #26, #28, #7) of 6 residents reviewed for monthly drug regimen review during a recertification/complaint survey.The findings include: 1) Review of Resident #4's medical record on 12/16/25 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #4's medical record the Pharmacist conducted a MRR (Monthly Regimen Review) on 11/13/25 and documented Irregularities (see consultant pharmacist report). Further review of Resident #4's medical record revealed no consultant pharmacist report from 11/13/25. On 12/17/25 at 10:42 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked about the MRR for November, and she stated they were in her office.…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-18 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — pattern
  Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document residents were offered and provided education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of receiving the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines to residents; and failed to maintain documentation related to influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in residents' medical records. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #4, #5) reviewed for influenza vaccination and 4 of 5 residents (Resident #1, #4, #5, #36) reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations during a recertification/complaint survey. The findings include: 1.Review of Resident #1's medical record on 12/16/25 for influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations revealed no documentation of the Resident's pneumococcal vaccination status. After Surveyor intervention, the facility staff obtained Resident's #1 pneumococcal vaccination documentation on 12/17/25 from ImmuNet. ImmuNet is a confidential database that stores immunization records and makes them available to health care providers. 2. Review of Resident #4's medical…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  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 facility staff failed to treat residents with dignity. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) of 6 residents observed during the recertification/complaint survey. The findings include:On 12/17/25 at 12:48 PM observation was made of Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #5 sitting in a chair next to Resident #12 on the left side of the bed. Prior to the surveyor knocking on the door to Resident #12's room, the surveyor observed, by the reflection in the glass of a picture on the right side of the wall (entrance), of GNA #5 sitting next to the resident. At the time of the observation, GNA #5 was looking down and not feeding Resident #12. The survey knocked on the door and entered and saw GNA #5 give a spoonful of pureed food. The surveyor observed a cell phone lying next to Resident #12 on the bed that was opened with a text message thread. On 12/17/25 at 2:30 PM the cell phone policy was reviewed after being received from the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The policy stated, to ensure residents are provided…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview, observation, and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that the resident's call light was within reach, per the individualized care plans, to allow access to assistance when needed by staff. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 12 residents interviewed during the recertification/complaint survey. The findings include: On 12/15/25 at 10:51 AM, while interviewing Resident #7, Resident #7 stated that he/she could not reach the call bell that was lying on the bed. Resident #7 was sitting in a reclining chair with his/her walker next to him/her on the right side. Resident #7's legs were reclined. The surveyor asked Resident #7 how he/she called the nurse and the response was, I just yell out for them. The surveyor went to get the nurse, Staff #4 who stated that Resident #7 normally had someone help him/her get out of bed into the chair. Staff #5 stated that the resident typically was gotten out of bed by the geriatric nursing assistant but at times would get out of bed without waiting for assistance. At that time, Staff #4 placed…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolated
  Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on review of facility documentation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse was on duty of at least 8 consecutive hours 7 days a week. This was found to be evident for 2 of 14 days reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey. The findings include: A review was conducted on 12/16/25 of the daily staffing sheets from 12/1-12/14/25 provided by the Administrator. The review revealed there were 2 days (12/6 and 12/7/25) with no RN coverage for day, evening and night shifts. Interview with the Administrator on 12/17/25 at 3:02 PM confirmed there was no RN on duty for 12/6 and 12/7/25.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
  Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs (Resident #7 and #36). This was evident for 2 of 6 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey. The findings include: 1) The facility staff failed to monitor the blood pressure and heart rate prior to administering a blood pressure medication with physician ordered parameters. On 12/17/25 at 10:05 AM Resident #7's medical record was reviewed and revealed a physician's order for Metoprolol Succinate ER 25 mg. to be given twice per day and to hold for the SBP (systolic blood pressure) if below 110 and heart rate less than 60. Systolic blood pressure is the top number of a blood pressure reading. Metoprolol is used to treat high blood pressure, chest pain, and heart failure. Review of Resident #7's September 2025, October 2025, November 2025, and December 2025 Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed the Metoprolol was given every morning at 9:00 AM and every evening at 5:00 PM. When the medication was…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolated
  Provide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
  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 medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory tests as ordered by the nurse practitioner for a resident (Resident #4). This was evident for 1 of 23 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.The findings include:Review of Resident #4's medical record on 12/16/25 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a hospitalization that included an orthopedic surgery.Further review of Resident #4's medical record revealed the Resident was seen by the Nurse Practitioner (Staff #18) on 11/11/25. At that time Staff #18 documented Will follow-up lab work on Thursday including Vitamin D level.Review of Resident #4's paper medical record revealed on 11/11/25 Staff #18 ordered a CBC (Complete Blood Count), CMP (Comprehensive Metabolic Panel) and Vitamin D level.Further review of Resident #4's medical record revealed the Resident did not have the laboratory tests as ordered.Interview with Administrator on 12/17/25…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0776 — isolated
  Provide timely, approved x-ray services, or have an agreement with an approved provider to obtain them.
  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 medical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain timely radiology services for residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 12 residents interviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.The findings include: On 12/15/25 at 10:55 AM an interview was conducted with Resident #7. Resident #7 stated that he/she was having difficulty lifting their left leg. Resident #7 stated, I can walk but just can't lift it. On 12/16/25 at 11:32 AM a review of Resident #7's medical record was conducted and revealed a 12/11/25 nursing note that documented the resident was evaluated by the Hospice nurse secondary to a call that was received from the facility day shift nurse assigned to the resident on 12/10/25 that documented, patient is unable to lift or move leg and previously was able. The note continued x-ray approved by Hospice. X-ray order placed with [name] at 3:30 pm. A 12/12/25 at 9:00 AM nurse practitioner note documented, x-ray of the left hip was ordered 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0840 — isolated
  Employ or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
  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 medical record review and interviews, the facility failed to schedule a surgical follow-up appointment for a resident (Resident #4). This was evident for 1 of 23 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.The findings include:Review of Resident #4's medical record on 12/16/25 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a hospitalization that included an orthopedic surgery.Review of Resident #4's hospital discharge instructions revealed it stated Follow-up: Surgeon in 6 weeks, or upon discharge from the rehab facility.During interview with Resident #4 on 12/17/25 at 8:59 AM, the Resident stated he/she does not have a follow-up appointment scheduled with the surgeon.Interview with the Scheduler (Staff #10) on 12/17/25 at 9:14 AM and review of the scheduling book for residents at that time, confirmed there is no follow-up appointment scheduled for Resident #4.Interview with the Administrator on 12/17/25 at 9:20 AM confirmed Resident #4 has been at the facility…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 33 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in MD