6525 Lancaster Pike, Hockessin, DE 19707 · New Castle County · (302) 998-0181
172 certified beds, about 165 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 085006 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 23, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Delaware average is 10.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 65 health citations since June 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $119,899 in the last three years; the largest was $72,900, and the latest is dated May 23, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.86 hours per resident per day, against 4.35 across Delaware and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.46 of those hours.
41.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Delaware average 41.3%).
CMS links it to Nationwide Healthcare Services, an affiliated group of 7 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 65 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free of physical and/or sexual abuse for three of 13 residents (Resident (R)82, R140 and R23). R82 reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 56. Resident (R)82 experienced physical abuse by R153, R140 experience sexual abuse by R48 and R23 experienced verbal abuse Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 28. The Findings Include:1. Review of R153's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia and depression. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to: 1.) report incidents and/or allegations of resident to resident physical and/or sexual abuse to the Administrator within two hours for three of 17 sampled residents (Resident (R) 82, R136, and R55) reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 56, and 2.) report injuries of unknown origin to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for one of four residents (R34) reviewed for accidents out of a total sample of 56. This had the potential to allow for continued abuse. Findings Include:1. Review of R153's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia and depression. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to investigate: 1.) incidents of resident to resident physical and/or sexual abuse for three of 17 sampled residents (Resident (R) 82, R136, and R55) reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 56 after R153 physically assaulted R82, R136, and R155; 2.) injuries of unknown origin for one of three residents (R34) reviewed for accidents out of a total sample of 56; and 3.) a potential incident of neglect for one of three residents (R172) reviewed for accidents out of a total ample of 56. These failures placed residents at continued risk of abuse and neglect. Findings Include: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that for two (R136 and R163) out of four residents reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure that staff treat each resident with respect and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined for one (R95) out of three residents reviewed for participation in care planning, the facility failed to ensure the correct resident representative was invited to participate in R95's care planning conferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R87) out of four (4) residents reviewed for personal property, the facility failed to provide the family with a written explanation of why R87 moved rooms at the facility's request on 1/23/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R14 and R110) out of four residents reviewed for assessments, the facility failed to document each residents' insulin usage.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R92) out of three residents reviewed for PASRR, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendation from the 9/10/24 PASRR level II determination in R92's care plan.
Inspectors wrote2. Cross refer to F641, example 2 Review of R14's clinical record revealed: 8/19/24 - R14 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of R14's comprehensive care plan lacked evidence of an individualized care plan with approaches for R14's diabetes diagnosis and use of insulin. 5/22/25 12:55 PM - During an interview, E39 (LPN/UM) confirmed the finding.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R65) out of thirty-five sampled residents, the facility failed to have a comprehensive care plan in complaince with the standard of practice regarding R65's dental cleanings and risk for infective endocarditis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R70) out of 35 sampled residents, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to a resident who was unable to carry out out activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R22) out of one sampled resident reviewed for hearing/vision, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that R22 received proper treatment and assistive device to maintain hearing abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of the facility's policy and procedures it was determined that the facility failed to provide the appropriate care and services to one (R163) out of one sampled resident who had a PEG/feeding tube through the abdomen into the stomach for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R1 and R81) out of three residents reviewed for respiratory, the facility failed to have the CPAP( a repiratory device the deliers continuous positive airway pressure) settings written in the orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. During medication pass observation on 5/16/25, 9 medication errors out of fourty four opportunities were identified, resulting in a medication error of 20.45% and affecting 1 resident (R163).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to have proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) worn for two employees after direct resident contact during bedside patient care observations. In addition, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene and change gloves for one employee during a wound dressing change observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for five (R119, R143, R158, R160 and R267) out of ten residents reviewed for vaccines, the facility failed to ensure that these residents' vaccination status was accurately documented. For four (R119, R143, R158, R267) out of ten residents reviewed for vaccines, the facility failed to offer the four residents the pneumococcal vaccine. For six (R119, R143, R158, R160, R267) out of ten residents reviewed for vaccines, the facility failed to assess and document the residents' influenza vaccine. For R267, the facility failed to check Delvax, where there was documentation of a flu vaccine on 9/18/2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that for three (R143, R158, R160) out of ten residents reviewed for vaccines, the facility failed to assess and offer the COVID vaccine.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R65) out of thirty-five sampled residents, the facility failed to provide and evaluate staff for appropriate competencies and skill sets regarding R65's LVAD (left ventricular assist device) as identified in the resident assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and review of other documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R70) out of six residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to assure that a physical restraint was used to treat R70's medical symptoms and was not being used for staff convenience.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R167) out of six (6) residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that R167 was protected from verbal abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R6 and R22) of six residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within two hours.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that for one resident (R108) out of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that R108 received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents to the extent possible. R108 was left sitting on the side of the bed during care and fell to the floor. R108 sustained a large hematoma on her forehead and was sent emergently to hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of other related documents, it was determined that for one (R10) out of nine residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide R10 adequate supervision and assistance to prevent burns. This resulted in harm to R10 as he sustained second-degree burns over 15-20 % of his body surface area. This is being brought forward as past non-compliance with an alleged date of compliance of 10/13/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that for three (R15, R19, R20) out of seven residents reviewed for falls, the facility failed to meet professional standards of the Delaware Board of Nursing Scope of practice by failing to have a registered nurse (RN) complete and document an RN post- fall assessment .
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and review of other facility documents as indicated, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one (R14) out of one resident was provided respiratory care consistent with physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R12) out of one residents sampled for pain management, the facility failed to monitor the resident's pain to the extent possible in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and care plan, and current professional standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R1) out of seven residents reviewed for falls, the facility failed to have complete, readily accessible medical records regarding the required post-fall assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R10) out of twenty-eight residents reviewed for environment, the facility failed to maintain the water supply/patient care equipment was in safe operating condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that for four out of five unit's nourishment areas the facility failed to ensure unit refrigerator food items were dated and labeled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that for two (R154 and R28) out of 40 residents observed the facility failed to ensure the residents right for a dignified existence and privacy was upheld.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R35) out of four residents reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to offer R35 the opportunity to formulate an advanced directive.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R130) out of six residents sampled for nutrition and one (R146) out of seven residents sampled for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the MDS assessments for each resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R29) out of three residents reviewed for dental services the facility failed to develop a care plan to address the resident's missing teeth. Additionally, for one (R169) out of three residents reviewed for behavior, the facility failed to develop a person centered care plan to address R169's new medical diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorder.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it has been determined that for one (R41) out of one resident reviewed for range of motion and mobility, the facility failed to provide appropriate services, equipment and assistance to maintain function and mobility or prevent further decrease in range of motion to R41's left wrist and hand.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R35) out of four residents reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to disclose and provide R35, a cognitively intact resident, with the facility's admission agreement that included, but was not limited to, addressing services, charges, consents, policies, advance directive form and resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that for four (R12, R169, R176, R177) out of seven residents reviewed for Hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure that all the mandatory contents of the transfer notice when a resident was transferred to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined for one (R134) out of four residents reviewed for communication sensory and for one (R51) out of one residents reviewed for smoking the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete and accurate.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of R165's clinical record revealed: 11/17/16 - R165 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia and heart failure. 1/5/23 - R165's medical record documented E52's (MD) order: Transfer Status: assist of 2, Bed Mobility: assist of 1, Ambulation 1 person assist with RW (rolling walker) with wheelchair following. 11/22/23 4:30 AM- R165 fell from an elevated bed while receiving incontinence care by E53 (former CNA). 11/22/23 7:07 AM - E54 (Emergency Department MD) documented in the ED (Emergency Department) Physician Record, . History of Present Illness . patient's bed was elevated and they [staff] were changing her when she was rolled and unfortunately fell out of the bed . Secondary Survey- Head: hematoma to the right parietal region . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R91, R132 and R136) out of five residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that each resident were free from abuse.
Inspectors wrote2. 9/4/23 - R174 was admitted to the facility. A review of the clinical record revealed the following 9/4/23 facility admission assessments conducted by E68 (LPN): admission evaluation, AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) evaluation, Bladder and Bowel Continence evaluation, Braden (scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk) evaluation, Elopement evaluation, Fall Risk evaluation and Skilled Nurse admission note. Of note, E40 (RN) completed the Side Rail/Restraint evaluation and E47 (RN) completed the Skin Only evaluation. 3. 11/27/23 - R176 was admitted to the facility. A review of the clinical record revealed the following 11/27/23 facility admission assessments conducted by E64 (LPN): [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R12, R165, R174) out of five reviewed for Accidents, the facility failed to ensure that the physician conducted the required visits.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of facility and other documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R132) out of five residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report staff to resident abuse to the State Agency within the two hour requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R35) out of six residents reviewed for communication-sensory, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided communication assistive devices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for two (R53 and R120) out of six residents reviewed for ADLs (activities of daily living), the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided toileting care per each resident's care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R120) out of six residents reviewed for ADLs, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient staff on 12/17/23 day shift to provide toileting care in accordance with the resident's care plan.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of R24's clinical record revealed the following: 2/5/16- R24 was admitted to the facility. 1/30/18- A Physician's order was written for heel boots to bilateral feet as tolerated every shift while in bed. 1/30/18- R24 was care planned for the potential for impaired skin integrity related to incontinence and decreased mobility. 1/30/18- Interventions included, but were not limited to: heel boots to bilateral feet as tolerated when in bed. 7/5/19- A Physician's order was written to consult therapy for interventions as needed. 5/26/23 10:30 AM- R24 was observed lying in her bed. Her right foot was in a soft cast and the left foot/heel was resting directly on the bed. A blue heel protector was on the ledge of the window sill on the right side of the bed and one was in the clear bin near the bedside drawer. No heel boots were on R24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper food storage, food handling, and food service worker and Nursing staff personal hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively monitory and timely clean and sanitize areas of pest droppings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the QAA committee measured the success of actions, track performance and regularly review, analyze, and act on data collected.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation of three out of five units toured, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that for four (R6, R24, R80 and R89) out of five sampled residents for respiratory care, the facility failed to change the oxygen tubing, in addition, the facility failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning the oxygen concentrator's filter for R80 and R89. For R6, the facility failed to ensure that staff used sterile gloves when providing respiratory care to R6 during a procedure that required the use of sterile gloves. For R24, the facility failed to provide emergency tracheostomy (trach- an opening surgically created in the neck into the windpipe to allow air to fill the lungs) and as needed (PRN) oxygen supplies for trach care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R34, R117 and R222) out of six residents sampled for medication review, the facility (Nursing and/or Physician) failed to consistently act on irregularities identified during Medication Regimen Reviews (MRRs) by the Pharmacist.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of the facility's Infection Control records, the facility failed to ensure that monthly tracking and surveillance data was collected and entered into the monthly Infection Control Logs and reviewed, analyzed and acted upon, if indicated. In addition, the facility lacked evidence that their IPCP (Infection Prevention and Control Program), including standards, policies and procedures were reviewed annually.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide training to three out of four of the Unit Managers (E6, E9, and E66) regarding the procedure for reporting incidents of abuse or neglect as evidenced by the Unit Managers (UM) being unable to or incorrectly state the time frame that such incidents need to be reported to the State Agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy review, and interview, it was determined that the facility lacked evidence that two (R34 and R154) out of four residents reviewed for care planning, was afforded the opportunity to participate in their care planning conference.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a care plan and/or add interventions as needed related to smoking for two (R22 and R84) out of five residents sampled for smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R60) out of 32 sampled residents for care plan review, the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect an identified need.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R154) out of two sampled residents reviewed for vision and hearing, the facility failed to ensure that the resident received proper treatment to maintain vision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that for two (R27 and R154) out of four residents reviewed for ROM (Range of Motion)/mobility, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to maintain or prevent further decline in function/mobility. The facility failed to provide R154 with restorative services while R154's orthotic devices (an artificial support or brace for the limbs or spine) for contracture management were in the laundry. For R27, the facility failed to ensure that R27 received PROM (Passive Range of Motion) exercise daily as prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews, it was determined that for one (R1) out of three residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment remained free of accident hazards when R1 was incorrectly transferred from a bed to a wheelchair with a Hoyer full body mechanical lift with the use of a sling.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and policy review, it was determined that for one (R34) out of six residents reviewed for MRR, the facility failed to ensure for R34 that the PRN psychotrophic medication, Xanax, was limited to a 14 day duration or to have the Provider document the reason for a prolonged period of PRN psychotrophic medication (30 days).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of a clinical record and other resources as indicated, it was determined that for one (R93) out of five sampled residents for medication review, the facility failed to store R93's insulin medications in a locked compartment in her room as she was under transmission-based precautions for Candida auris (C. auris). In addition, the facility failed to ensure that the [NAME] wing wound care cart was secured (locked) and accessible only to designated staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that one (R154) out of seven residents received the correct meal as issued on their meal ticket.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to promote care for residents in a manner and environment that maintained or enhanced each resident's dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her own individuality.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2026 | Fine | $72,900 |
| May 23, 2025 | Fine | $17,760 |
| February 10, 2025 | Fine | $12,438 |
| May 1, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
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) | 3.86 | 4.35 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.46 | 0.97 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.66 | 3.89 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.26 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.7% | 41.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 45.0% | 41.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
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 3.95 on weekdays and 3.66 on weekends, 7% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.81 in April to June 2025 to 3.86 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 | 3.86 | 0.46 | 3.95 | 3.66 | 5.4% | 0 of 90 | 165 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.83 | 0.40 | 3.92 | 3.61 | 4.9% | 0 of 92 | 165 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.94 | 0.37 | 4.06 | 3.64 | 5.8% | 0 of 92 | 161 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.81 | 0.36 | 3.95 | 3.49 | 6.5% | 0 of 91 | 165 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 16.5 | 12.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 1.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.4 | 13.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.7 | 10.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.8 | 23.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.2 | 11.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Regal Heights Healthcare & Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.7% 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. 45 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 114 eligible stays.
5.8% 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. 71 eligible stays.
42.7% 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. 82 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 119 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 119 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: 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. 8 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: REGAL HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER, LLC. CMS links this home to Nationwide Healthcare Services, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gelley, Leah | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 06/01/2006 | |
| Gelley, Meir | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 06/01/2006 | |
| Gelley, Meir | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/01/2006 |
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.