Northampton Post Acute

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.

57.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 557 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 84.3% 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 217 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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 180 beds and averages 172.1 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 2.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-05-08 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  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 facility policy review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents and staff on one of three nursing units. (Unit 1) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Oxygen Storage, last reviewed on January 16, 2026, revealed that oxygen cylinders were to be stored in racks with chains, sturdy portable carts, or approved stands, were never to be left free-standing, and were not to be stored in any resident room or living area. Observations in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on May 7, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m., and 1:05 p.m., revealed an unsecured oxygen tank standing in the corner of the room. Observations on May 5, 2026, between 1:55 p.m. and 2:10 p.m. and May 6, 2026, between 9:30 a.m. and 10:05 a.m. revealed the following: In the shower room on unit one, there were broken tiles on the walls of two shower stalls. In resident room [ROOM NUMBER]-B, an oxygen concentrator had dust 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  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 observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to meet a resident's medical and physical needs for one of 35 sampled residents. (Residents 18)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, dementia, type two diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and a history of falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident 18 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for upper body dressing and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of Resident 18's care plan revealed he had skin breakdown related to impaired mobility, was at risk for spills and burns from hot liquids, and was dependent on staff for dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing. The care plan goal was to reduce the risk for skin breakdown with interventions that included for staff to…

  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 · D2026-05-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow procedures to prevent accident hazards for one of 35 sampled residents. (Resident 162)Findings include: Review of the facility policy on Sharps Disposal, dated January 16, 2026, revealed that contaminated sharps will be discarded immediately and into closable, puncture resistant containers. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 162 had diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, acute embolism (when a blood clot travels and settles in another location) and thrombosis of unspecified vein (the formation of a blood clot in blood vessels, partially or completely blocking blood flow), anemia (a deficiency of healthy red blood cells), hypokalemia (low potassium levels, and other symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness. A Social Services assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 162 had impaired cognition. Clinical record review…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-08 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (%) for one of two nursing units observed during medication administration. (Unit 1)Findings include: Observations of medication administration on May 6, 2026, from 8:05 a.m. to 8:20 a.m., revealed 27 medication opportunities with two medication errors that resulted in a medication administration error rate of 7.41%. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 53 had diagnoses that included heart disease, high blood pressure, and thrombosis in a deep vein of the lower extremity (the formation of a dangerous blood clot in a vein of the leg). A review of the physician's orders dated December 24, 2025, revealed that staff was to administer an enteric coated (a polymer barrier coating on an oral tablet or capsule that prevents it from dissolving in the stomach's acidic environment) medication used to prevent blood clot formation (aspirin) and a combination medication used to treat constipation (senna-docusate sodium…

  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 · D2025-04-25 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that meals were served in a manner that maintained each resident's dignity for one of 34 sampled residents. (Resident 138) Findings include: Observations of the lunch meal on the 2nd floor nursing unit on April 23, 2025, at 12:30 p.m., revealed Residents 32, 96, 99, 102, 138, and 143 were seated in the dining room. At 12:32 p.m., Residents 32, 96, 99, 102, and 143 were served and were eating their meals. Resident 138 was observed without a meal, throwing his hands in the air, and making comments including, What do you have to do to get food around here? Resident 138 was not served his lunch tray until 12:55 p.m. In an interview on April 25, 2025, at 9:18 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that all residents in the dining room should be served a meal at the same time. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(a) Resident rights.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 34 sampled residents. (Resident 471) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 471 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of a recent stroke. A nursing note from the date of admission indicated that Resident 471 was alert, oriented, was able to make his needs known, had very little control of his left leg, and had no control of his left arm. Review of the care plan indicated Resident 471 was at risk for falls related to an acute stroke. There was an intervention for staff to be sure the call bell was within reach and provide reminders to use the call bell for assistance. On April 22, 2025, at 12:15 p.m., April 23, 2025, at 8:50 a.m. and 12:10 p.m., the resident was observed sleeping in his bed. The call bell was on the nightstand to the right side of the bed and was out of the resident's reach. On Thursday,…

  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 · D2025-04-25 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the resident's current status for one of 34 sampled residents. (Resident 147) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 147 had diagnoses that included non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space around the brain), torticollis (a condition in which the muscles of the neck contract causing the head to twist and tilt to one side), and left hemiplegia (weakness on one side of the body). Review of the occupational therapy evaluation dated December 19, 2024, revealed that the resident had impairments with strength and range of motion in the left upper extremity. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], did not identify the resident as having an upper extremity impairment in functional limitation in range of motion on one side under section GG, Functional Status. In an interview on April 25, 2025, at 9:37…

  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 · D2025-04-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 34 sampled residents. (Residents 19) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 19 had diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and heart failure. A physician's order dated April 15, 2025, directed staff to administer a medication (midodrine) three times a day for hypotension (low blood pressure). Staff was not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP, the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was greater than 130 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). Review of Resident 9's medication administration record revealed that staff administered the medication on April 16, 18, and 21, 2025, when the resident's SBP was greater than 130 mm/Hg. In an interview on April 25, 2025, at 10:05 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the medication was documented as administered outside of the established parameters for Resident 19. 28 Pa. Code…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
  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 clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent further decline and/or improve range of motion for one of nine sampled residents with limited range of motion. (Resident 147) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 147 had diagnoses that included non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space around the brain), torticollis (a condition in which the muscles of the neck contract causing the head to twist and tilt to one side), and left hemiplegia (weakness on one side of the body). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had no cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene and dressing. Review of the occupational therapy evaluation dated December 19, 2024, indicated that the resident had no functional limitations present due to contracture. Review of the occupational therapy discharge summary from January…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adequate catheter care was provided for one of three sampled residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. (Resident 106) Findings included: Review of the facility policy entitled, Catheter Care, Urinary, last reviewed November 1, 2024, revealed that a urinary drainage bag was to be held or positioned lower than the bladder at all times to prevent the urine in the tubing and drainage bag from flowing back into the urinary bladder. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 106 had diagnoses that included urinary obstruction and enlarged prostate. On April 2, 2025, the physician ordered for the resident to have a foley catheter every shift. The care plan directed staff to keep the catheter below the level of the bladder. On April 22, 2024, from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., Resident 106 was observed sitting in his recliner in the dining room and then across from the nurses' station with the catheter drainage bag hanging on the armrest of…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES — 87 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 37 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

15 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.

This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 PA