Wesley Enhanced Living At Stapeley

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.

57.1% 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 87 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 75.4% 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 61 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 120 beds and averages 108.9 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 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 3.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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 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.

28 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 17 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-11-04 · 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 review of clinical record, review of facility documentation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one of six residents reviewed receive the required assistance via mechanical lift during a bed to chair transfer. This failure resulted in actual harm to Resident R1 whose left leg got twisted during transfer and sustained a fracture of the left femur (thigh bone). (Resident R1) Findings include: Review of facility policy 'Using a Mechanical Lifting Machine,' revised July 2017, states the following: 4. Prepare the environment: a. clear an unobstructed path for the lift machine; b. ensure there is enough room to pivot; c. position the lift near the receiving surface; and d. place lift at correct height. Further review of policy instructs staff to 13. Lift the resident 2 inches from the surface to check the stability of the attachments, the fit of the sling and the weight distribution. 14. Check the resident's comfort level by asking or observing for signs 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
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  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 record review, facility policies, facility documents, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the safety and adequate supervision and ensure that safety devices were in place for five of six residents reviewed for risk of wandering and elopement. (Residents 122, R21, and R39).Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Elopement of a Resident, last revised 12/17/2025, outlines procedures to ensure resident safety and prevent elopement, particularly for residents with dementia or cognitive impairment. The policy requires elopement risk assessments upon admission, family interviews, resident photographs in the medical record, Wander Guards for at-risk residents, and individualized care plans to address wandering behaviors. The policy also establishes procedures for responding to a missing resident, including staff search assignments, use of resident photographs, notification of leadership, police, SEPTA (public bus transportation system), and family…

  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 · Ecited before2026-05-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on policy review and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective and comprehensive water management program necessary to identify, monitor, control, and reduce hazardous conditions supporting the growth and spread of Legionella within the facility water system and failed to ensure proper infection control practices during the administration of eye drops for one of one resident observed. (Resident R101)Findings inlcude: Review of the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention- a major public health agency in the United States that works to: Monitor and track diseases (like flu, COVID-19, etc.) ,Prevent outbreaks and health threats ,Provide health guidelines and research ,and Respond to emergencies (pandemics, natural disasters, bioterrorism) recommends that healthcare facilities implement a water management program to reduce the risk of Legionella growth and prevent Legionnaires' disease. The program should include a multidisciplinary team, identification of all water systems, and assessment of conditions that may promote bacterial growth such as stagnant…

  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 · D2026-05-07 · tag F0627 — isolated
  Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
  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 review of facility documentation, clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an appropriate, safe, and properly documented discharge process for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge practices (Resident R 118). Findings include:Review of facility policy titled Transfer or Discharge Documentation dated December 2016, stated residents have the right to remain in the facility unless discharge is necessary because the facility cannot meet the resident's needs, the resident's condition has improved sufficiently, the resident poses a danger to the safety or health of others, nonpayment occurs, or the facility ceases operation. The policy further requires documentation supporting the reason for discharge, physician documentation related to safety concerns or unmet needs, documentation of attempts to meet resident needs, and communication of all necessary information to ensure a safe and effective transition of care. Review of the Resident R 118's Minimum Data…

  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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 clinical record review, interviews with residents and staff, reviews of policies and procedures, nursing staffing assignments, pertinent human resource documents and the report form for investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property (PB-22), it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident was free from physical and mental abuse. (Resident R1)Findings include:A review of the facility policy titled abuse prevention program revealed that each resident at the facility had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. The policy indicated that each resident had the right to be free from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms. The policy indicated that the administrator was responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect or mistreatment 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policies, observation, interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility failed to promote care for residents that maintains or enhances dignity and respect related to privacy during treatment administration and ensuring residents' care and comfort is maintained by providing necessary necessities of bedding for two of eight residents reviewed. (Resident 4 and Resident 370) Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Abuse and Neglect dated March 2018, clinical protocol defines neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers, to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish or emotional distress. Review of facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL) dated March 2018 revealed residents will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. Review of Resident R4's quarterly Minimum…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated emergency transfers to the hospital for one of two hospitalizations reviewed (Resident R117). Findings Include: Review of Resident R117's clinical record revealed a nursing progress note dated March 18, 2025, that indicated the resident was transferred to the local hospital for evaluation. Review of documentation provided by the Nursing Home Administrator on May 23, 2025, at 10:35 a.m. revealed the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman was not made aware of Resident R117's facility-initiated emergency transfers to the hospital as required until May 21, 2025. Interview on May 23, 2025, at 10:54 a.m. with the Nursing Home Administrator, Employee E1, confirmed the ombudsman was not made aware of Resident R117's hospital transfer on March 18, 2025. 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(2) Management

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0655 — isolated
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for one of two new admissions reviewed (Resident R319). Findings Include: Review of facility policy, Care Plan-Baseline dated 2001 revealed, A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate health and safety needs is developed for each resident within forty-eight (48) hours of admissions. Review of Resident 319's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive degenerative disease of the brain). A comprehensive care plan which was initiated on May 12, 2025 did not indicate a baseline care plan for dementia. On May 21, 2025, at 1:48 p.m. an interview with the Director of Nursing, Employee E2 confirmed that Resident R319 did not have a baseline care plan. 28 Pa Code 211.10(c) Resident care policies 28 Pa Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  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 a review of clinical records, and interviews with residents, family members, and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) to maintain proper grooming for 3 of the six residents reviewed (Residents R319, R62 and R45). Findings: Review of Resident 319's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had a diagnosis of dementia, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and osteoarthritis ( join disease that results in breakdown of join cartilage and underlying bone). A review of Resident R319's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, reflecting severe cognitive impairment. A comprehensive care plan initiated on May 12, 2025, indicated: I have an ADL deficit due to cognitive deficits, impaired balance, and spinal fracture. Assistance of one person is required for transfers, bed mobility, toileting, bathing/washing,…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolated
  Provide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on review of facility policies, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that medically related social services were provided as required for four of eight residents reviewed related to routine care plan meetings. (Residents R60, R61, R68, R97) Finds include: Review of facility policy titled Care Plans - Baseline dated March 2022 revealed the baseline plan includes instructions needed to provide effective person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality of care and must include minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the resident including but not limited to initial goals, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services, PASARR recommendations. The baseline care plan Is used until a staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop interdisciplinary person standard comprehensive care plan the baseline care plan is updated as needed to meet the residents needs until the comprehensive care plan is developed. Review of Resident 60's clinical…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
  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 review of clinical records, staff interview, and pharmacy review recommendations, it was determined that the facility failed to act on the pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R78). Findings include: Clinical record review revealed Resident R78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included but not limited to personal history of transient ischemic attach (TIA) (refers to it as a mini- stroke temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain), cerebral infarction, dementia, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet. Further review of Resident R78's clinical record revealed the physician ordered Diclofenac sodium external gel 1% apply to left hip and lower back topically four times a day for arthritis pain, apply 4 grams to left hip and lower back on January 14, 2025. During a drug regimen review on January 14, 2025, the pharmacist recommended that Voltaren Gel (Diclofenac Gel) should be administered as follow:…

  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 plan 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

$8,824 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $8,824 — penalty dated 2024-11-04

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner 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 $645K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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