EXTON POST ACUTE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Exton Post Acute has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about care quality. Ranked #285 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, they are in the top half but have room for improvement, especially as they are #14 out of 20 in Chester County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is on an improving trend, reducing issues from 16 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, with a low rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 65%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 46%. On the positive side, they have good RN coverage, exceeding 82% of state facilities. There have been serious incidents noted in recent inspections, including failures to arrange transportation for a resident with multiple orthopedic appointments, leading to hospitalization due to a wound deterioration, and inadequate supervision that resulted in a fall and further complications for another resident. Additionally, a lack of proper skin assessments led to a stage 3 pressure ulcer for one resident, highlighting potential gaps in care. While there are some strengths, such as RN coverage, families should carefully consider these serious issues when evaluating this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Pennsylvania
- #285/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $24,244 in fines. Higher than 98% of Pennsylvania facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 67 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Pennsylvania nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
19pts above Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
17 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of facility policy, review of personnel files and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their policy to screen employees according to the Old...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
10 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · 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 the facility failed to assist one of one (Resident 43) re...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, hospital records, and interviews with resident and staff, it was determined that the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility's policy, clinical records and hospital record review, and interview with resident and staff, it was...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, hospital record review, and interviews with resident and staff, it w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical records review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the wound treatment ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based upon review of staffing records and performance reviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure performance reviews were completed for five of five staffing records reviewed, (E8, E9, E1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate indication and consistently attempt a non-pharmacological intervention before adm...
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 a review of the facility's policy, and drug manufacturer's recommendations, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were properly ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility's policy, observations and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infecti...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy and procedure review, staff interview and resident record review it was determined the facility failed ...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the medications ordered by the physician were available for one of the three residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
2 deficiencies
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 F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure initial weight was a...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of the facility's policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage in the main kitchen....
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 the facility failed to provide pharmacy services for one o...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff and family interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide ADL care to dep...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
9 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record, and facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to timely assess, monitor, and treat for suspected laundry detergent poisoni...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record, and facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired resident's (Resident 222) environment was f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician of a si...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to e...
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
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record and laboratory documentation reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure blood work ordered by the physician was completed for one of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based upon review of staffing records and performance reviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure performance reviews were completed for five of five staffing records reviewed, (E6, E7, E8...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record and pharmacy record reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of staffing records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to perform the minimal 12 hours of annual training for five of five staffing records reviewed, (Emp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
1 deficiency
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
**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 follow physician orders for po...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
1 deficiency
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 facility's policy, clinical records, facility investigation reviews; and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow policy and procedures for hot beverages for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical records review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure app...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 6 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 6 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $24,244 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Exton Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EXTON POST ACUTE an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Exton Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates EXTON POST ACUTE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 65%, which is 19 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 76%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Exton Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at EXTON POST ACUTE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 6 that caused actual resident harm and 23 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Exton Post Acute?
EXTON 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 120 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 58% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EXTON, Pennsylvania.
How Does Exton Post Acute Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, EXTON POST ACUTE's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (65%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Exton Post Acute?
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 Exton Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EXTON 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 3-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 Exton Post Acute Stick Around?
Staff turnover at EXTON POST ACUTE is high. At 65%, the facility is 19 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 76%. 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 Exton Post Acute Ever Fined?
EXTON POST ACUTE has been fined $24,244 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,321. 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 Exton Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
EXTON 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.