1900 Lovering Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19806 · New Castle County · (302) 652-3311
104 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · Non profit - Other · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 085001 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 13, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Delaware average is 10.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since October 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,278 in the last three years; the largest was $8,278, and the latest is dated December 13, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.51 hours per resident per day, against 4.35 across Delaware and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.91 of those hours.
39.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Delaware average 41.3%).
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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to:1. Provide supervision to prevent a fall for 1 (Resident #110) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. While providing care to Resident #110 on [DATE], Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #16 turned her back to the resident and the resident jerked and fell to the floor. Initially, the resident was transferred to a hospital and received four sutures for a skin tear to the left side of their forehead. Two days later, on the morning of [DATE], CNA #16 noted swelling to resident #110's left hip and thigh and the resident had limited range of motion (ROM) to the left leg. The resident's physician was notified, and an x-ray was obtained, which revealed a fracture and displacement to the resident's left femur (hip area). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods items stored in the walk-in refrigerator and freezer were covered, labeled and dated and expired food items were discarded. The facility further failed to ensure wash dishes as directed by the facility policy. Lastly, the facility failed to ensure hot foods were held on the tray line at a temperature of at least 135 degrees Fahrenheit. These deficient practices had the potential to affect residents who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse to the state survey agency that involved 2 (Resident #11 and Resident #19) of 7 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The facility further failed to ensure staff immediately reported an allegation of abuse to the Director of Nursing and/or Executive Director for 3 (Residents #18, #34, and #37) of 7 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to interview all persons identified as involved or with knowledge of an occurrence for 2 (Resident #34 and Resident #93) of 7 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure they had an effective pest control program to address the infestation of rodents on 1 (3rd floor) of 4 floors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the narcotic count sheets on each medication cart for the oncoming nurse and off going nurse were documented prior to finishing the narcotic count to ensure accuracy of the narcotics for five of five medication carts reviewed of 40 sample residents. This failure had the potential for drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure beard guards were worn during food production in accordance with professional standards for food service safety with the potential to affect 89 of 89 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. This failure had the potential for physical contamination of the food in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance to ensure accidents were avoided for one of one resident (Resident (R) 102) reviewed for accident hazards of 40 sample residents. This failure had the potential to elevate the hazard/accident risk for all residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed related to portion size for four of four residents (Resident (R) 76, R84, R88, and R62) who were on a mechanical soft diet and residents receiving regular texture diets of 40 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect the residents on the dementia unit and could result in unintentional weight loss for those residents who were nutritionally at risk without providing the appropriate meal portions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure risks vs (versus) benefits, for the use of psychotropic medications, were obtained for one of five residents (Resident (R) 3) reviewed for unnecessary medications of 40 sample residents. This failure placed residents at risk of not being informed of proposed care and treatment options.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (Resident (R) 26) of 40 sample residents was allowed to self-administer cough drops per the physician order. This failure placed the resident at risk of having his right to self-administer medications violated.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure three of six residents (Resident (R) 103, R39, R105) reviewed for abuse was free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect two of two residents (Residents (R) 17 and R95) from misappropriation of property of 40 sample residents. This failure has the potential to affect all residents who choose to keep money and/or credit cards in their rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of potential abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) in a timely manner for one of five residents (Resident (R) 108) reviewed for abuse/neglect of 40 sample residents. This failure had the potential for other allegations of abuse/neglect not to be reported in a timely manner. (Cross Reference F741)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (Resident (R) 36) of 40 sample residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly could potentially lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements and inaccurate assessment and care planning of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADLs) were provided consistently according to the plan of care for two of six residents (Residents (R) 93 and R23) reviewed for ADLs of 40 sample residents. The facility failed to ensure R23 was provided with oral hygiene and R93 was provided with consistent showers twice weekly. This failure placed the residents at risk of a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1, who identified a skin alteration for one of two residents (Resident (R) 36's) reviewed for wound care, notified the Primary Care Physician (PCP) for treatment orders. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a physician ordered blood pressure was obtained prior to administering a hypertensive medication for one of five residents (Resident (R) 109) observed during the medication pass of 40 sample residents. This failure placed residents at risk for health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided to one of one resident (Resident (R) 1) reviewed for nail care of 40 sample residents. This had the potential to limit mobility for R1 or cause R1 pain if the nails were left untreated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident (R) 36) was provided adaptive equipment (padded footrest) that was attached to her wheelchair and failed to ensure one of two residents (R23) was consistently provided with a physician ordered splint to her right arm/hand of 40 sample residents. This failure placed the residents at risk of improper support, positioning, and at risk of further decreased range of motion (ROM) and worsening contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, and other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with appropriate dementia care interventions from one of one Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 1 resulting in one of one resident (Resident (R) 108) sustaining harm with visible bruising, skin tears, and complaints of pain of 40 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect resident safety at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident's (Resident (R) 36) wheelchair was functioning properly. This had the potential for the resident to use a wheelchair that might not properly fit her body.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, documentation review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a sanitary manner; failed to ensure the dishwasher was at the correct temperature level to sanitize the residents' dishes; failed to ensure sanitizer was at the correct level, and failed to ensure a food storage container was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 98 of the 99 residents who receive meals from the kitchen. The facility identified one resident who received nothing by mouth (NPO).
Inspectors wrote5. Review of R65's clinical record revealed: 5/14/21 - R65 is admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including a stroke with hemiparesis (weakness or paralysis on one side of the body). 10/21/21 - A Physician's order was written for R65 to receive range of motion activity to both shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands knees and ankles twice a day, every day and evening shift. 10/11/23 - A review of R65's CNA task list in the facility Electronic Medical Record (Emr) revealed the task to perform range of motion activity to both shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands knees and ankles twice a day every day and evening shift. The Range of motion task was not documented as done on the day shift on the following days: 10/2/23, 10/3/23, 10/4/23, 10/6/23, 10/7/23, 10/8/23 and 10/10/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of facility admission paperwork, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that Residents and/or Resident Representatives (RRs) who signed the Arbitration Agreement would be allowed 30 days to rescind their signature, and failed to ensure the Arbitration Agreement was fully explained. This affected 34 (Residents (R)2,R7,R9, R10, R12, R14, R15, R17, R19, R20, R24, R28, R30, R31, R37, R44, R46, R49, R58, R64, R68, R69, R70, R74, R75, R77, R78, R79, R83, R85, R92, R93, R94, and R442 of 99 residents who had signed the Arbitration Agreement, and had the potential to affect any future residents who might sign the agreement.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of the Arbitration Agreement, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that the Arbitration Agreement presented to Residents (Rs) and Resident Representatives (RR) during admission included a clause that a mutually convenient venue for the Arbitration would be selected. This had the potential to affect the 34 residents (R2, R7,R9, R10, R12, R14, R15, R17, R19, R20, R24, R28, R30, R31, R37, R44, R46, R49, R58, R64, R68, R69, R70, R74, R75, R77, R78, R79, R83, R85, R92, R93, R94, and R442) of 99 residents who had signed the Arbitration Agreement and any future resident who might the agreement.
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) received at least 12 hours of in-service training per year. This involved three CNA5, CNA7, and CNA8 of five CNAs education records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two of three residents (Rs) and/or their representatives (RR) (R 17 and R79) reviewed for facility initiated emergent hospital transfer were provided with written notice of transfer that contained all required information. This failure had the potential to affect the resident and their RR by not having the knowledge of where and why a resident was transferred.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative of the bed hold policy upon transfer/discharge to the hospital. This involved two (Residents (R17 and R64) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to provide an accurate resident assessment regarding a Level II screening of a Pre-admission Screening and Annual Resident Review (PASARR) on an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (Resident (R) 67) out of 28 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure of one (Resident (R) 14) of 28 sampled residents reviewed had a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) re-submitted upon a new mental health diagnosis. This had the potential to place the resident at risk for unmet care needs and not receiving appropriate mental health support/services as needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of two residents (Resident (R) 441) reviewed for bed rail use had documented safety assessment for the use of bed rails and the Resident or Resident Representative (RR) were advised of the risks and/or benefits of rail use. This failure had the potential for the resident or the RR to be uninformed of the risks associated with bed rail use.
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a performance review was completed every 12 months for five (Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA)4, CNA7, CNA5, CNA8, CNA1) of five nurse aide performance reviews reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure there were no loose pills in the medication carts and failed to properly store medication for one (Resident (R) 79) that was located in another resident's room (R16). This had the potential for unauthorized residents or staff to access the medications.
2 fire safety citations on file: 2 on October 12, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 13, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
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 | Delaware | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.51 | 4.35 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.19 | 3.89 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.69 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.91 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.4% | 41.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 45.8% | 41.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.35 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 4.63 on weekdays and 4.19 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.89 in April to June 2025 to 4.51 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 | 4.51 | 0.91 | 4.63 | 4.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.53 | 0.95 | 4.70 | 4.10 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.38 | 0.88 | 4.53 | 4.00 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.89 | 0.83 | 4.01 | 3.59 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 94 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Delaware, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.05 | 0.79 | 4.21 | 3.67 | 5.7% | 0% 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.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.21 | $18.51 to $21.74 | 5,530 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.03 | $30.97 to $36.07 | 2,240 |
| Registered nurses | $47.85 | $41.30 to $53.71 | 14,290 |
| 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 | Delaware | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.8 | 12.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.7 | 13.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 10.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.9 | 23.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 11.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Kentmere Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Delaware: 17 better, 1 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. 159 eligible stays.
9.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Delaware: 1 better, 0 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. 172 eligible stays.
6.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Delaware: 0 better, 0 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. 126 eligible stays.
55.2% this home
Median of homes: Delaware59.6% · 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. 67 residents counted.
1.2% this home
Median of homes: Delaware0.8% · 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. 85 residents counted.
2.5% this home
Median of homes: Delaware2.4% · 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. 85 residents counted.
97.7% this home
Median of homes: Delaware98.7% · 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. 43 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: KENTMERE HOME OF MERCIFUL REST SOCIETY INC..
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gartner, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| Mazie, Eric | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Kentmere Home of Merciful Rest Society Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/05/1966 | |
| Johnson, Leslie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/23/2026 | |
| Healthpro Heritage LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2026 | |
| Kentmere Home of Merciful Rest Society Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/20/2026 | |
| Rkl LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2026 | |
| Gartner, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| Johnson, Leslie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/23/2026 | |
| Mazie, Eric | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Zhu, Ying | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2020 |
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.
These are the official offices in Delaware. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.