Yardley Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center

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.

50.1% 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 513 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 77.0% 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 161 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 170 beds and averages 166.6 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.09 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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.

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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  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 physicians' orders for two of 35 sampled residents. (Residents 23, 158)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 23 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure) and type 2 diabetes. A physician's order dated May 26, 2023, directed staff to administer a blood pressure medication (amlodipine) daily. The physician ordered that staff were 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 lower than 120 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). Review of Resident 23's Medication Administration Records (MAR) for October, November and December 2025, and January and February 2026, revealed that the staff administered amlodipine once in October, once in December, six times in January, and once in February when Resident 23's SBP was lower than 120 mm/Hg.Clinical record review revealed that Resident 158 had diagnoses that…

  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 before2026-02-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — pattern
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to attempt non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate pain prior to the administration of pain medication prescribed on an as needed basis for one of 35 sampled residents. (Resident 13)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Pain Management, last reviewed January 25, 2026, revealed that the physician would order non-pharmacological and medication interventions to address a resident's pain. Staff were to provide a comfortable environment and complementary interventions that included local heat or ice, repositioning, massage, and the opportunity to talk about chronic pain. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 13 had diagnoses that included dementia, diabetes, and abnormalities of gait and mobility (unusual patterns of walking that affect balance). On November 26, 2025, the physician ordered for the resident to receive tramadol every 12 hours as needed for pain. Review of Resident 13's care plan revealed that the resident had pain 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-02-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  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 implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of infection for one of 35 sampled residents. (Resident 1)Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, last reviewed January 25, 2026, revealed that EBP were to be used with any high-risk resident with a wound or indwelling device during high contact care activities including during wound care, the care of feeding and tracheostomy tubes, providing hygiene, and changing briefs and linens. EBP included the use of PPE such as protective gowns and gloves during high-risk activities. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome (a neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement, balance, eye control, speech, swallowing, and cognition), dementia, the…

  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 · Dcited before2026-01-21 · 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 clinical record review, staff interview, and a review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to implement safety interventions to prevent falls for one of four sampled residents. (Resident 3)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included left and right below the knee amputations. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], Resident 3 required assistance for transferring from surface to surface (wheelchair to chair). On October 5, 2025, at 3:38 p.m., a nurse noted that Resident 3 was being transferred from his wheelchair to the weight chair by NA1 and NA2. The wheelchair rolled from under the resident and the resident was lowered to the floor. The nurse noted that the cause of the fall from her observation was that the bilateral wheelchair brakes were broken and did not fully engage prior to the transfer. Review of facility documentation dated October 5, 2025, regarding the fall revealed that the bilateral…

  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 · D2026-01-21 · tag F0694 — isolated
  Provide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
  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 resident and staff interviews, review of facility policy, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate treatment and care for a peripherally inserted catheter (a thin plastic tube inserted into a vein using a needle) in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of two residents. (Resident 4) Findings include: According to the Association of Vascular Access, at a minimum, the clinician overseeing the care of the resident conducts a daily peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) assessment. Clinicians must routinely inspect the insertion site and assess the functionality of the PIVCs for signs of complications and document assessment results. Clinicians must perform a daily evaluation for the ongoing need of the PIVC. Healthcare teams must review a resident's vascular access needs as part of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary evaluation to ensure effective communication and appropriate care planning. Further, clinicians should notify the…

  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 · E2025-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on March 9, 2025, at 9:54 a.m., revealed the following: In the walk in refrigerator, there was a rolling storage rack that contained raw meat. There was a pan of raw chicken that was stored above a pan of cooked roast beef. The same rolling storage rack also held pans of raw turkey, cubed beef, whole beef tenderloins, and ground meat. The raw poultry (chicken and turkey) were stored above the raw beef, which required a lower internal cooking temperature than raw poultry. In an interview on March 12, 2025, at 9:33 a.m., the Administrator confirmed that the raw meat was not stored properly and raw poultry should not have been stored above cooked food or raw beef. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 32 sampled residents. (Resident 3) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 3 had diagnoses that included anxiety, dysphagia, and osteoarthritis. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a self-care deficit due to physical limitations and the intervention was for staff to encourage her to use the call bell for assistance. On March 9, 2025, at 11:54 a.m. and 1:53 p.m., the resident was observed in bed. The call bell was inside of the drawer to her bedside stand which was positioned away from the bed, out of reach. On March 11, 2025, at 11:02 a.m., the resident was observed in bed; the call bell was again observed in the drawer of the bedside stand, out of reach. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
  Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to improve activities of daily living (ADLs) for one of 32 sampled residents. (Resident 14) Findings include Clinical record review revealed that Resident 14 had diagnoses that included anxiety, osteoarthritis, and muscle weakness. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a self-care deficit and required a restorative nursing program (RNP) for ambulation (walking). The interventions were for staff to assist with ambulation and perform a restorative nursing program with the resident daily. In an interview on March 11, 2025, at 1:11 p.m., the resident stated that she was willing to walk with staff but that staff had not offered to assist her with ambulation regularly. Review of the nurse aide task record revealed no evidence to support that staff offered to assist the resident with the ambulation RNP on February 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26, and 27, 2025, and March 1, 2, 5, and 8, 2025. There were no documented refusals. In an interview on…

  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 · D2025-03-12 · 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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent a decline in range of motion for one of 32 sampled residents. (Resident 103) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 103 had diagnoses that included left wrist contracture. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident required assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). A physician's order dated April 15, 2024, directed staff to apply a soft pro [NAME] resting hand splint due to a left-hand contracture. The resident was observed on March 9, 10, and 11, 2025, at 12:34 p.m., 1:05 p.m., and 11:06 a.m., respectively. The splint was not in place at any of those times. The resident stated that staff had not applied the hand splint in a while and he had not refused use of the splint. There was a lack of evidence to support that staff had applied the splint; there were no documented refusals. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5)…

  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 · Dcited before2025-03-12 · 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 clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one of 32 sampled residents. (Resident 99) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, but could make her needs known. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a self-care deficit related to her cognitive disease process and required supervision with eating and drinking. The interventions were for staff to ensure the resident was upright prior to all oral intake, provide supervision of all meals, and have the resident out of bed and in the dining room for meals. On March 5, 2025, staff noted that Resident 99 experienced a choking episode that required mechanical…

  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

“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 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 38 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

16 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 $1.3M 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