Home / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia
1401 Ivy Hill Road, Philadelphia, PA 19150 · Philadelphia County · (215) 233-5605
145 certified beds, about 140 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395525 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 12, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
None of its 43 health citations since November 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.84 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.57 of those hours.
45.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to The Rosenberg Family, an affiliated group of 16 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an antianxiety medication was available for administration for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident R1). Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Medication Administration undated states, Licensed nursing professionals will administer medications according to times of administration determined by the facility. Review of Resident R1's clinical record revealed Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the observations, and an interview with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the most recent Department of Health Survey results were readily accessible to residents and visitors in three of three nursing floors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean linen, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment in two of the three nursing units observed (3th and 2nd floor Nursing Units).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, interview with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's advance directives were accurately documented in resident's clinical record for one of 28 residents reviewed. (Resident R110)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a discharge MDS assessment for 2 of 28 residents reviewed (Resident R65, R76).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident 27)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a communication board was available or one of one resident reviewed who spoke a language other than English (Resident R3). Findings Include: A review of Resident R3's clinical record revealed an admission date of February 29, 2012. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plan, dated August 30, 2023, indicated: Communication device: [NAME] communication board at the bedside at all times. A review of Resident R3's clinical record did not indicate the language the resident spoke. Observation conducted on March 9, 2026, at 10:36 a.m., revealed that Resident R3 was unable to speak English. When asked what language the resident spoke, the resident stated Mandarin, Cambodian. When asked if (he/she) had any concerns, Resident R3 began speaking in another language. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain treatment orders for one of four residents reviewed with skin impairment. (Resident R145)
Inspectors wroteBased on direct observation, clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure enteral feedings were administered and monitored according to professional standards of practice, specifically related to labeling, for one of one resident reviewed for tube feeding (Resident R135).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the manufacturer's recommendations, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medications were properly dated when opened for one of two medication rooms (Unit 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of employee credentials, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a qualified director of food and nutrition services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility assessment and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the direct care staff and input from residents, resident representatives, and/or family members was included when conducting the facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for three of three nursing units observed (first floor, second floor, third floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of care and services, interviews with residents and staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that three of 38 residents were protected from inappropriate sexual behaviors from one resident. (Residents R63, R44, R82)
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of personnel files and the Department of State documents, staff interviews and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to perform criminal history background checks for two of two volunteer files (Employees E10, and E11) reviewed and the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from abuse by implementing the established abuse policy (Residents R63 and R44).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and interview with staff, it was revealed that the facility did not ensure revisions were made to the PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) application to include mental health diagnoses for 3 out of 3 residents reviewed. (Resident R108, R10, R90).
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide abuse, neglect and exploitation training for two of two volunteer staff reviewed (Employee E10, and E11).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews with residents and staff and reviews of policies and procedures, it was determined that for one of two residents reviewed that the interdiciplinary care planning team failed to assess each resident for self adminitration of medications and determine if the practice was clinically appropriate and safe in accordance with their residents rights. (Resident R94)
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews with resident and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate evidence that a grivance was promptly documented and resolved for one of 26 resident records reviewed. (Resident R95) Findings Include: The facility will fully investigate and respond to all concerns or complaints regarding patient/resident care and/or treatment. The patient/resident/ resident representative has the right to file a grievance orally, in writing, or anonymously. All grievances will be responded to within 48-72 hours, and in writing if requested. On March 24, 2025, at 12:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident R37, who reported that $80 had gone missing in January 2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to identify the placement of beds against the wall as a restraint, the use of a seatbelt on a wheelchair as a restraint, and did not assess the functional status of an individual resident to determine the appropriateness of using a restraint for two of the 26 residents reviewed (Resident R108 and Resident R26) Findings Include: Review of Resident R108's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility February 1, 2024, with a diagnosis of difficulty in walking, and encephalopathy (disease that affects the brain's structure or function). On March 24, 2025, at 12:52 p.m., Resident R108 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the dining room with a seatbelt fastened across his waist. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, facility documentation, review of clinical records, and interview with staff; it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan and interventions to address Resident R30's recent overdose, Resident R36's lack of toiling program and Resident R69's past traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) abd self administration of medication (Resident R94) for 4 of 26 residents reviewed. (Resident R30, R36, R69, R94)
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview, review of facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly supervise residents during medication administration for one of 26 residents reviewed (Resident R57).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, interview with staff and review of policies, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was provided with devices to optimize posture during dining and failed to collect additional nutritional biochemical data related to the resident's nutritional status for one of five residents reviewed. (Resident R63)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for one of one resident reviewed (Resident R23).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records, facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that pain level assessments were accurate for one of the 2 residents reviewed (Resident R30) .
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide culturally competent, trauma informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice, accounting for the resident's past experience and preferences in order to eliminate and /or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for one of four residents reviewed. (Resident R 69)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medication regimens were followed by the facility in a timely manner for two of the five residents reviewed related to medication regimen reviews (Residents R30 and R61).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that as needed anti-anxiety medication was limited to 14 days unless a documented rationale was provided for one of eight residents reviewed for medication administration regimen. (Resident R69)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of facility policies and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free of significant medication error for one of four residents reviewed for medication administration relating to prescribed route of medication administration. (Resident R 116)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise comprehensive person-centered plan of care in a timely manner, for one of 28 resident records reviewed (Residents R384).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of care and services and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to assess communication needs and ensure that appropriate treatment and services were provided to maintain the ability to speak and understand the preferred language for one of two residents reviewed. (Resident R10)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, reveiw of physician's orders and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility to ensure that physician's order related to tube feeding was followed for one of twenty-eight residents reveiwed (Resident R14).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of care and services, clinical record review, interviews with staff and reviews of policies and procedures. it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision for one of two residents reviewed. (Resident R10)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who exhibited new onset of decrease in functional abilities receive appropriate treatment and services to improve and prevent further deterioration for one of 28 was observed (Resident R 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical review it was determined that the facility failed to monitor labs for one resident on fluid restrictions (Resident R75).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with residents and staff, observations, and review of clinical records it was determined that facility failed to address and/or obtain necessary services for behavioral health care needs for one of 28 residents reviewed (Resident R82)
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals are stored and labeled in accordance with professional standards for two of two medication rooms observed (second floor and third floor medication rooms).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of care and services, clinical record reviews, interviews with staff and policy and procedure reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide routine dental services from an outside resource to meet the dental needs for one of three residents reviewed. (Resident R36)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper infection control practices were observed related to tube feeding and medication administration for one of one tube feeding observation and one of five residents observed (R14 and R79).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the operations within the food and nutrition department, reviews of policies and procedures, interviews with staff, and reviews of the the chemical manufacturers guidelines, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain all mechanical dietary equipment in safe operating condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident fund quarterly statement for one of two residents reviewed for personal funds. (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and resident fund accounts, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a final accounting of funds within 30 days of transfer for one of two residents (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interview with resident, resident's representative, and staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that proper referral was initiated to transfer resident to another facility for one of the two residents reviewed. (Resident R2)
21 fire safety citations on file: 7 on March 12, 2026, 8 on March 28, 2025, 6 on June 13, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.84 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.57 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.58 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.48 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.8% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 7.1% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.66 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.95 on weekdays and 3.58 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.70 in April to June 2025 to 3.84 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.84 | 0.57 | 3.95 | 3.58 | 15.3% | 0 of 90 | 140 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.56 | 0.52 | 3.71 | 3.18 | 28.8% | 0 of 92 | 139 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.72 | 0.50 | 3.83 | 3.44 | 38.1% | 0 of 92 | 136 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.70 | 0.49 | 3.80 | 3.44 | 31.1% | 0 of 91 | 137 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.5 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.1 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ivy Hill Post Acute Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 67 eligible stays.
10.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 90 eligible stays.
7.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 51 eligible stays.
58.6% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 58 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 17 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: IVY HILL POST ACUTE NURSING & REHABILITATION. CMS links this home to The Rosenberg Family, a group of 16 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivy Hill 2 LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/17/2022 |
| 1401 Ivy Hill 2 LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 11/17/2021 | |
| 1401 Ivy Hill LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 11/17/2021 | |
| Stern, Samuel | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/17/2021 | |
| Bewley, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/21/2025 | |
| Lewis, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/17/2021 | |
| Rosenberg, Avraham | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 11/17/2021 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 11/17/2021 | |
| 1401 Ivy Hill 2 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/17/2021 | |
| 1401 Ivy Hill LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/17/2021 | |
| Bewley, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 | |
| Rosenberg, Avraham | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living residences and personal care homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Pennsylvania licence record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.