FOULK LIVING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Foulk Living in Wilmington, Delaware, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering this nursing home. It ranks #6 out of 43 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 25 in New Castle County, indicating it has only two local competitors that are better. The facility is improving, reducing its issues from 11 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a strength here with a perfect 5-star rating, a low turnover rate of 12% compared to the state average of 42%, and more registered nurse coverage than 79% of Delaware facilities. However, $19,837 in fines is concerning, suggesting some compliance problems, and recent inspections revealed serious issues, including a resident sustaining multiple fractures due to unsafe transport and concerns about food safety and pest control in the kitchen. Overall, while Foulk Living has many strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses as they make their decision.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Delaware
- #6/43
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $19,837 in fines. Higher than 93% of Delaware facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 75 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Delaware nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (12%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (12%)
36 points below Delaware average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Feb 2024
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's environment was free from acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R42) out of one resident reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representativ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, it was determined that for one (R3) out of one reviewed for PASARR, the facility failed to refer R3 for a PASARR level II evaluation when R3 was diagnosed with d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's received immediate medical at...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R195) out of one resident reviewed for physician services, the facility failed to ensure that R195 was seen for the required physi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that for one (R36) out of twenty-six medication administration observations, the facility failed to provide accurate labeling to fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R18) out of one reviewed for food, the facility failed to ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, staff interview and review of other documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a sanitary manner; failed to ensure the dishwasher oper...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R1 and R15) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that for one (R23) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that R23's physician's order for lab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R26) out of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accident investigations, the facility failed to provide assistiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R9) out of one resident sampled for respiratory care investigation, the facility failed to provide respiratory care c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of one resident sampled for pain investigation, the facility failed to ensure that a complete pain assessment was conducte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility documents and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Food Service Department maintained the kitchen and stored food under san...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that for one (E4 Social Services) out of eight staff reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination compliance, the facility failed to properly...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility did not properly ensure that the facility was properly maintained to prevent pests. Finding include:
During the initial kitchen tour on 5/19/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure that staff were fit tested for N-95 masks creating an unsafe environment by not implementing approp...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the nurse staffing in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors for two out of two nursing ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Delaware.
- • 12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $19,837 in fines. Above average for Delaware. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Foulk Living's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns FOULK LIVING an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Delaware, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Foulk Living Staffed?
CMS rates FOULK LIVING's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 12%, compared to the Delaware average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Foulk Living?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at FOULK LIVING during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Foulk Living?
FOULK LIVING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 46 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WILMINGTON, Delaware.
How Does Foulk Living Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, FOULK LIVING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (12%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Foulk Living?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Foulk Living Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, FOULK LIVING has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Delaware. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Foulk Living Stick Around?
Staff at FOULK LIVING tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 12%, the facility is 33 percentage points below the Delaware average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 17%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Foulk Living Ever Fined?
FOULK LIVING has been fined $19,837 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Delaware average of $33,277. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Foulk Living on Any Federal Watch List?
FOULK LIVING is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.