AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER

32 SOUTH BETHLEHEM PIKE, AMBLER, PA 19002 (215) 646-7050
For profit - Corporation 100 Beds SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#154 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: February 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Ambler Extended Care Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, as it is solidly above average. It ranks #154 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #21 out of 58 in Montgomery County, meaning only 20 local options perform better. The facility is showing improvement in its overall performance, having reduced its reported issues from four in 2024 to just two in 2025. However, staffing is a concern, with a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 58%, which is above the state average of 46%. While there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, there are specific incidents of concern, such as failing to provide therapeutic diets as ordered for residents and poor sanitation in the dietary department, including improperly stored food items. Overall, while there are strengths in some areas, families should be aware of the staffing challenges and specific care issues when considering this facility.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Pennsylvania
#154/653
Top 23%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary and comfortable en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary and comfortable environment for residents and staff in one of two shower rooms and on one of two nursing units. ([NAME] nursing unit shower room) Findings include: In a confidential resident interview on February 26, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., a resident stated that the shower rooms were messy and had mold in the shower stalls. Observations on February 26, 2025, at 10:05 a.m., of the shower room on the [NAME] nursing unit revealed the following: There was a piece of wood on top of the heater in the room. There was dirt on the wall where the heater was located. The toilet bowl was soiled with urine and feces. The ceiling light over the tub was dirty on the inside of the light cover. There was a wet sheet on the floor in front of the shower stall. There was a black substance on the tile flooring of the shower stall and on the bottom tile moldings of the shower stall. The plastic bumpers near the entrance of the shower stall were broken and damaged. 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (b) (1) Management.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of trash and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the dumpster area on February 25, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., reveal...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of trash and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the dumpster area on February 25, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., revealed multiple pieces of crushed plastic and cardboard debris, Styrofoam cups, food debris, an opened milk carton with a clumpy white substance in front of it, and used gloves around the outside of the dumpster. There were two bags of garbage and a window curtain sticking out from below the dumpster. There was a collapsed bin behind the dumpster with a layer of leaves on top. 28 Pa Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.
Mar 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 8) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 8 had diagnoses that included cirrhosis of the liver (scarring of the liver), chronic viral hepatitis (inflammation of the liver lasting more than six months), and encephalopathy (change in brain function due to injury or disease). According to the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], the resident was able to communicate needs to staff and required assistance for mobility and activities of daily living, including toileting, grooming, and hygiene. Observations on February 28, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., and 12:30 p.m., revealed the resident was in bed and the call bell was wrapped under the wheel of the bed, out of reach. Observations on February 29, 2024, at 9:40 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 1:00 p.m., revealed Resident 8 was in bed and the call bell was wrapped under the wheel of the bed, out of reach. In an interview on March 1, 2024, at 9:24 a.m., the Administrator confirmed the resident's call bell was wrapped under the wheel of the bed and should have been within reach. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the resident's current status for one of 19 sampled residents. (Resident 55) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 55 had diagnoses that included end-stage renal (kidney) disease and dependence on renal dialysis (the process of removing water and toxins from the blood in people whose kidneys can no longer perform those functions). Resident 55's care plan indicated that the resident had dialysis scheduled three times per week. Nursing documentation noted that the resident attended dialysis during the assessment period. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], did not identify Resident 55 as receiving dialysis under section O, Special Treatments and Programs. In an interview on March 1, 2024, at 11:28 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that Resident 55's MDS assessment was inaccurate.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess and implement safety measures related to smoking for two of four sampled residents who smoke. (Residents 37, 49) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Resident Smoking Policy, last reviewed January 26, 2024, revealed that any resident who smoked or had the desire/intent to smoke would be assessed for smoking safety awareness and the need for reasonable physical or safety accommodations on admission, readmission, quarterly, and with any significant change in condition. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 37 had diagnoses that included diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and [NAME]-Danlos Syndrome (a disorder that affects the connective tissues of the body). According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated November 22, 2023, the resident had no cognitive impairment. In an interview on February 27, 2024, at 12:30 p.m., Resident 37 reported smoking on a regular basis. Observations on February 27, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., and February 28, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., revealed Resident 37 outside the back of the building, in the designated smoking area, smoking. There was no documentation in the clinical record to support that the resident's smoking safety was evaluated by the facility. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 49 had diagnoses that included hemorrhagic thrombocythemia (chronic blood disorder), tobacco use, and hypertension (high blood pressure). According to the MDS assessment, dated December 13, 2023, the resident had cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 49's care plan revealed he was a supervised smoker with an intervention for staff to complete smoking assessments to ensure safety. There was no documentation in the clinical record to support that the resident's smoking safety was evaluated quarterly per facility policy after June 23, 2023. In an interview on February 29, 2024, at 1:48 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that smoking assessments should be completed at least quarterly. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide therapeutic diets as ordered by the physician for two of 19 sampled residents. (Residents 37, 61) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 37 had diagnoses that included diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and [NAME]-Danlos Syndrome (a disorder that affects the connective tissues of the body). A physician's order dated December 1, 2022, directed staff to provide a low concentrated sweets and no added salt diet. Review of the care plan revealed a potential for nutritional problems related to diabetes. The intervention was for staff to provide the diet as ordered. Observation on February 28, 2024, at 12:44 p.m., revealed that the resident was provided regular sugar with his meal tray. In an interview at that time, Resident 37 stated that he had not received any sugar substitute in over a week and was given regular sugar packets instead. Observation on February 29, 2024, at 12:39 p.m., revealed that the resident was again served his lunch with no sugar substitute provided on the meal tray and given regular sugar packets. Review of the resident's meal tray ticket revealed that he was to receive four sugar substitute packets with his coffee. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 61 had diagnoses that included diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), and dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing). A physician's order dated March 31, 2023, directed staff to provide a low concentrated sweets and no added salt diet. Review of the care plan revealed a risk for unstable blood glucose (sugar) and a potential for nutritional problems related to diabetes. The intervention was for staff to provide the diet as ordered. Observation on February 28, 2024, at 12:20 p.m. revealed that Resident 61 was provided regular sugar with his meal. In an interview at that time, Resident 61 stated he frequently received sugar instead of sugar substitute with his meals. During a confidential group interview on February 28, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., the resident group stated that the facility often does not have sugar substitute packets for their drinks. The residents stated that sugar packets were given to them in place of a sugar substitute. In an interview on February 29, 2024, at 12:15 p.m., the Registered Dietitian stated that residents on a low concentrated sweets diet were to receive sugar substitute with their meals and that regular sugar packets should not have been given as a replacement for sugar substitute. 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee. 211.12(d)(3)(5) Nursing services.
Apr 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two of two nursing units. ([NAME] and [NAME] nursing units) Findings include: Observations on the [NAME] and [NAME] nursing units on April 11 and 12, 2023, at various times revealed the following: In room [ROOM NUMBER], the corner to the right of the bathroom had dirt and grime. In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was a dried liquid that the Administrator later identified as paint, under the tube feeding pole. In the [NAME] dining room, there was a chair scale that had a stain on the top of the cushion. In the resident pantry refrigerator there was a dried sticky substance along the bottom shelves in both the refrigerator and freezer. The baseboard next to the refrigerator had a large crack. There were several sunflower seeds on the floor by the cracked baseboard. The walls in rooms 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, and 216 were marred and had chipped paint. The corner of the walls in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had holes in the plaster/drywall. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the wallpaper had peeled off the wall. In the bathroom shared by resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], the toilet was loose from the floor. The floor was completely lifted under the bed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. There were cobwebs above the window in room [ROOM NUMBER]. CFR 403.10 (i) Safe Environment Previously cited 5/12/22, 1/3/23 28 Pa. Code 207.2 (a) Administrator's responsibility.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a wo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a working call bell for one of 21 sampled residents. (Resident 79) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 79 had diagnoses that included stroke, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and dysphonia (difficulty in speaking). The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had minimal memory impairment and required extensive assistance from staff for activities of daily living, including toileting, dressing, and bed mobility. Observations on April 11, 2022, at 10:20 a.m. and again at 12:30 p.m., revealed that the call bell cord was disconnected from the wall adapter so when the resident activated the call bell, no sound or lights were observed. Observations on April 12, 2023, at 9:15 a.m., revealed that the call bell cord was still disconnected from the wall adapter in Resident 79's room. In an interview on April 11, 2023, at 9:20 a.m., Resident 79 stated that the call bell had been broken for at least three days and that she wanted a call bell in order to be able to call for assistance from staff if it was necessary. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d) Nursing services.
CONCERN (F)

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 policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to properly store items and maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department. Findings include: R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to properly store items and maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled, Storage of Refrigerated Foods, last reviewed March 31, 2023, revealed that all bulk condiment items were to be dated and outdated items were to be discarded. Review of the facility's policy entitled, Storage of Dry Food, last reviewed March 31, 2023, revealed that food stored in containers were to be identified with name of food item and date opened. Observation during the tour of the dietary department on April 11, 2023, at 9:45 a.m., revealed in the walk in cooler, there was a package of ham removed from the original container with no date on it. In the cook's refrigerator, there were multiple opened bottles of condiments with no date to reflect when opened and a carton of eggs with a best by date of March 13. In the trayline cooler, there was a bulk container of a food the Food Service Director (FSD) identified as jelly that was not labelled or dated. There were three large bulk containers of powdered food items that the FSD identified as flour and bread crumbs that were not labelled or dated. In dry storage there were three large bulk food containers that had various food debris that covered the lids. The shelves next to the containers had food debris on all of shelves. There were three opened packages of pasta that were not dated. In an interview conducted with the FSD at 10:30 a.m., he confirmed that the food items should have been dated, labelled and the expired food items should have been removed. CFR 483.6 (i) Food Safety Requirement Previously cited 1/3/23 28 Pa. Code 211.6 (c) Dietary services. 28 Pa. Code 201.14 (a) Responsibility of licensee.
Jan 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on one of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on one of two nursing units. ( [NAME] Wing nursing unit) Findings include: Observation on the [NAME] Wing nursing unit on January 3, 2023, at 11:15 a.m. revealed mouse droppings on the floor around the perimeter of room [ROOM NUMBER] and there was dirt and debris on the floor. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there were mouse droppings on the floor around the perimeter of the room and cobwebs in the back left corner of the room. There were mouse droppings on the floor around the perimeter of room [ROOM NUMBER], with a large accumulation in the back right corner of the room. There was dried brown liquid on the wall to the right of the bathroom door and dried brown liquid on the wall near the window. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there were mouse droppings along the walls, under the residents' beds, in a white basket on the floor, and on the window sill. There was an accumulation of food wrappers and other debris under Resident 2's bed. There were mouse droppings on the floor around the perimeter of room [ROOM NUMBER] and in a pair of slippers on the floor near the closet. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there were mouse droppings on the floor around the perimeter of the room, on the heating unit, and window sill. There were dirty cups, paper towels, and other debris on the floor in the back right corner of the room. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 multiple residents

Based on observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation during a tour of the kitchen on January 3, 2023, at 10:4...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation during a tour of the kitchen on January 3, 2023, at 10:40 a.m., revealed that there were holes in the wall in the hallway across from the dry storage area and near the door to loading dock area from the kitchen. The dry storage room contained dirt and debris, a soiled glove, and mouse droppings on the floor.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Ambler Extended's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, 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 Ambler Extended Staffed?

CMS rates AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 72%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ambler Extended?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 10 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Ambler Extended?

AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in AMBLER, Pennsylvania.

How Does Ambler Extended Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ambler Extended?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ambler Extended Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Ambler Extended Stick Around?

Staff turnover at AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 72%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Ambler Extended Ever Fined?

AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Ambler Extended on Any Federal Watch List?

AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER 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.

AMBLER EXTENDED CARE CENTER

32 SOUTH BETHLEHEM PIKE, AMBLER, PA 19002 | (215) 646-7050

B
Trust Grade (75/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
11
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Staff Retention, Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025