Home / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia
2100 North 49th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19131 · Philadelphia County · (215) 877-1565
96 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395983 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 20, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $12,185 in the last three years; the largest was $12,185, and the latest is dated July 22, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.14 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.00 of those hours.
42.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Marquis Health Services, an affiliated group of 90 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with standards for food service safety in two of two nourishment rooms observed (ground and 1st floor nursing units).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and staff documentation, the facility failed to ensure one of two residents reviewed resident received necessary care and services to prevent recurrent hypoglycemic events, failed to implement and follow physician/provider orders related to insulin management, failed to adequately monitor and reassess the resident following hypoglycemic episodes, and failed to accurately document interventions and resident response, resulting in repeated symptomatic hypoglycemia requiring emergency hospital transfer. (Resident R109) Review of facility policy management of Hypoglycemia undated revealed that residents with hypoglycemia must be closely monitored for symptoms such as weakness, sweating, confusion, dizziness, behavioral changes, or decreased consciousness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for two of two residents (Resident R104 and R58). Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, Smoking Policy-Residents with a revision date of October 2023 states, Policy Statement- this facility has established and maintains safe resident smoking practices. Further review of the policy states, 8. Resident smoking status is evaluated upon admission. If a smoker, the evaluation includes a. current level of tobacco consumption b. method of tobacco consumption (traditional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, pipe, etc.) c. desire to quit smoking and d. ability to smoke safely with or without supervision (per completed Smoking Evaluation). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to include active involvement from direct care staff and input from residents in the facility assessment process.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical documentation and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision during care by ensuring two staff were available for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R56). This failure resulted in actual harm to Resident R56 who fell out of bed and sustained a compound fracture of the right femur (hip). This deficiency was identified as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan related to a pressure ulcer for one of two new admissions reviewed (Resident R47). Findings Include: Review of facility policy Care Plans - Baseline revealed a baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate health/safety needs is developed for each resident within 48 hours of admission. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility did not ensure the comprehensive care plan was implemented related to communication for one of 18 residents reviewed (Resident R46).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that weights were monitored for two of 18 residents reviewed (Resident R23, R29)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policies, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than five percent for one of three residents observed during medication administration (Residents R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policies, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to be free of significant medication error for one of three residents (Residents R6).
Inspectors wroteBased observations and staff interviews, it was determined that facility did not ensure that opened medications were properly labeled with the date that the medication was opened for two of three medication carts reviewed and one of one medication room reviewed. (Upper Level Med room, Lower Level South Med Cart, Lower Level North Med Cart).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and facility provided documentation, it was determined facility failed to develop a care plan related to urinary track infection for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident R1)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with resident and review of facility provided documentation, it was determined that facility failed to ensure that toiletries were provided upon admission to the facility for one of three residents reviewed. ( Resident R4)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with residents and review of facility provided documentation, it was determined that facility failed to ensure that call bells were responded to for three of nine residents reviewed ( Residents R2, R3, and R4)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a comfortable environment due to clogged bathroom sinks in two of the four nursing units observed (Upper-Level South and North Nursing Units).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy, resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medication administration for one of 2 residents reviewed (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan related to wound care for one of 6 residents observed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of facility documentation, and review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that appealing food options were available for residents for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program related to mice infestation on two of four nursing units (LL South Wing, and LL North Wing).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Resident R1 was free of neglect during a transfer via mechanical lift which resulted in actual harm to Resident R1 who was transfered with the assistance of one staff member, the tightening of the sling pad and sustaining a fracture of the fourth lumbar vertebra, compresion fracture of the second lumbar vertebra, multiple fracture of ribs to the left side, and compression fracture of the third vertebra for one of three residents reviewed. (Resident R1) This deficiency was cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and documents, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the proper transfer of Resident R1 via mechanical lift with the assistance of two staff, which resulted in actual harm to Resident R1 with the tightening of the sling pad, sustaining fracture of the fourth lumbar vertebra, compresion fracture of the second lumbar vertebra, multiple fracture of ribs to the left side, and a compression fracture of the third vertebra. (Resident R1) This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews with staff, and a review of facility policies and documentation, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 8 out of 18 residents reviewed. (Residents R70, R87, R51, R65, R141, R75, R23 and R45). Findings Include: An initial tour of the facility was taken on July 16, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. of Upper Level North units revealed the following: Interview with Resident R70 revealed that she was unable to call her family stating that her phone has not been working since she was admitted on [DATE]. Observation of Resident R70's phone revealed that it was plugged into the wall, but did not have a dial tone or light up. Interview with Resident R87 revealed that her phone did not work either. Observation of Resident R70's phone revealed that it was plugged into the wall, but did not have a dial tone or light up. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's clinical record included complete and accurate documentation that residents were provided with the right to participate in his/her care plan meetings for 6 out of 6 residents reviewed (Resident R63, R18, R30, R1 and R3).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, review of facility policy and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed for the administration of pain medication for one out of 21 residents records reviewed (Resident R5).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately record resident's weight, and failed to monitor, assess and implement interventions in a timely manner for a resident with significant weight loss for 1 of 21 records reviewed. (Resident R76)
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility documentation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to complete performance reviews of nurse aides as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, review of facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility did not maintain complete and accurate clinical records related to enteral feeding volume documentation for 2 of 21 records reviewed (Resident R64 and Resident R191).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, the review of the clinical record and facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a communication process was utilized for communication between the facility and the hospice care agencies for 1 out of 1 resident review receiving hospice care (Resident R41).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, clinical record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed [NAME] ensure that medications were administered at the correct time as ordered by the physician for one of 5 residents reviewed (Residents R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on the observation, review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nursing services met professional standards of quality according to the Pennsylvania Code Title 49, Professional and Vocational Standards, by documenting on the Medication Administration Record that medications were administered to a resident who was at dialysis treatment for one of 5 clinical records reviewed. (Resident R2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility did not complete a comprehensive care plan for one of five residents reviewed (Resident CL1).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records, review of facility policy and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that complete and accurate clinical records were maintained for one out of three residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that personal belongings were accounted and release upon discharged for one out of 22 residents reviewed.
21 fire safety citations on file: 10 on May 20, 2026, 8 on May 16, 2025, 3 on July 22, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 22, 2024 | Fine | $12,185 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 4.14 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.00 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.53 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.18 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.2% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 35.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.20 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 4.39 on weekdays and 3.53 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.10 in April to June 2025 to 4.14 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 | 4.14 | 1.00 | 4.39 | 3.53 | 3.4% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.06 | 1.01 | 4.27 | 3.52 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.97 | 0.96 | 4.20 | 3.37 | 3.4% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.10 | 0.82 | 4.27 | 3.69 | 3.5% | 0 of 91 | 89 |
| 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 | 10.3 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.3 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.1 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.7 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.2 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Kearsley Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (62.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
62.5% this home
Better than 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. 216 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 194 eligible stays.
5.5% 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. 123 eligible stays.
91.9% 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. 74 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. 255 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 255 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 102 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: KEARSLEY OPERATOR LP. CMS links this home to Marquis Health Services, a group of 90 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty Bell Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2024 |
| K Equities LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Quinto Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 49% | 01/01/2022 |
| Yr 2013 Delta Tr Ua 03252013 | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/01/2022 |
| Kohn 2020 Descendants' Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Sora Kohn Fam Tr Uad 120120 | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Uak 2020 Irrv Tr | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Ukr Consulting LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Private Bancorp Inc | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 07/01/2011 | |
| Galinkin, Brian | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/11/2017 | |
| Weiss, Kay | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/03/2018 | |
| Galinkin, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 09/11/2017 | |
| Posen, Mindee | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/12/2014 | |
| Marquis Limited LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2021 | |
| Nutraco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/22/2017 | |
| Reliant Pro Rehab LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/10/2021 | |
| Galinkin, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/11/2017 | |
| Sobel, Adam | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2011 | |
| Kearsley Skilled Care LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2011 | |
| Liberty Bell Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Marquis Limited LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/07/2025 | |
| Nfr 2020 Irrv Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Nutraco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/08/2025 | |
| Quinto Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Reliant Pro Rehab LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/07/2025 | |
| Rsbrmk Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Sk 2013 Delta Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Sora Kohn Fam Tr Uad 120120 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Tryko Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Ukr Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Yr 2013 Delta Tr Ua 03252013 | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Galinkin, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/11/2017 | |
| Posen, Mindee | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/12/2014 | |
| Sobel, Adam | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2011 | |
| Weiss, Kay | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/03/2018 |
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.