NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Northampton Post Acute has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice for families seeking a nursing home, suggesting it performs better than many facilities. It ranks #206 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state, but at #10 out of 12 in Northampton County, it shows that there are only a couple of local options that are better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 30%, significantly better than the state average of 46%, although the RN coverage is average. There have been concerning incidents, such as food safety violations in the kitchen where food was found on the floor and staff did not change gloves after handling raw and cooked items, as well as a situation where one resident was left without food for an extended period, indicating a need for improvement in resident care and dining services.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Pennsylvania
- #206/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (30%)
18 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
16pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that meals were served in a manner that maintained each resident's dignity for one of 34 sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 →
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of 34 sampled residents. (Residents 19)
Findings include:
Clini...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to im...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that adequate catheter care was provided for one of thr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 provide enteral...
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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, resident interviews, observation, and results of a test tray evaluation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at an appeti...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately monitor and assess a significant weight change for one of seven s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services consistent with professional standards of practice for one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen.
Findings include:
Observation of the tray line service on May 29,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
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 develop and implement an indi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of food committee minutes, review of weekly menus, resident and responsible party interviews and clinical record...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the dietary department.
Findings include:
During an environmental tour on July 16, 2023, at 9:56 a....
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
- • 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.
- • 30% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Northampton Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE 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 Northampton Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Northampton Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Northampton Post Acute?
NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE 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 MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 169 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EASTON, Pennsylvania.
How Does Northampton Post Acute Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Northampton Post Acute?
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 Northampton Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE 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 Northampton Post Acute Stick Around?
NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Northampton Post Acute Ever Fined?
NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE 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 Northampton Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
NORTHAMPTON POST ACUTE 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.