CROSSLANDS

1660 EAST STREET ROAD, KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348 (610) 388-1441
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds KENDAL Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#26 of 653 in PA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Crosslands in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, holds a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is recommended and above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #26 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among 20 facilities in Chester County. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, achieving a 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average. There have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, but the RN coverage is only average. On the downside, there were several concerning incidents, including a serious case where a resident fell and sustained a hematoma due to the facility's failure to follow their care plan. Additionally, there was a lack of investigation into a possible abuse or neglect situation involving the same resident, and another resident's assessment inaccurately reflected their discharge status, indicating a need for better oversight and documentation. While Crosslands has many strengths, families should be aware of these issues and consider them when making a decision.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Pennsylvania
#26/653
Top 3%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 76 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
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: KENDAL

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jan 2025 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, and staff interview it was determined the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow a resident's care plan resulting in fall with subsequent actual harm of a hematoma requiring transportation to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment of a hematoma for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 52). Findings include: Review of Resident 52's care plan for continence at the time of the fall revealed Toileting program: check and change upon awake, before bed, before and after meals, at midnight, 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 28, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. revealed Firbank East [FE] nurse heard a loud thump from lounge area, when FE nurse walked over to see what the noise was, FE nurse discovered [Resident 52] on the floor, laying on right side in front of Broda chair, laying parallel to TV stand. Resident stated I don't feel good. I feel dizzy. Resident assessment: oriented to self at baseline, lethargic, difficulty opening eyes and following commands, PERRL [pupils equal and reactive to light], large hematoma to right forehead measuring approximately 6 centimeters [cm] x 6 cm, c/o [complaining of] buttock pain, c/o dizziness and upset stomach. Education completed with FE staff regarding toileting care plan. Injuries: right forehead hematoma, skin slightly abrased but no bleeding or drainage. Further review of Resident 52's progress notes revealed Resident 52's power of attorney was notified, and it was agreed to send Resident 52 to the emergency room to rule out a bleed in the head. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 28, 2024, at 9:58 p.m. revealed spoke with ER [emergency room] nurse at [acute care facility]. Report received - EKG [electrocardiogram] stable; CT (computed tomography -medical imaging test that combines X-ray technology with computer processing to create detailed cross-sectional images of the body) scan of head and neck completed; both scans were negative. Resident cleared to return to facility. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 29, 2024, at 1:33 a.m. revealed Resident returned from [emergency room of local hospital] at 00:10 a.m. to room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident awake and alert, at baseline with mentation; resident denies pain; bruising to right temple and right outer orbital. Resident had CT scans at [acute care facility] of head without contrast and of cervical spine. Head CT showed no acute intercranial abnormality, CT to spine showed no acute fracture. Resident was assessed. Resident had smear of feces to bilateral buttocks on return and was cleaned and brief put in place. Review of Resident 52's care plan for continence at the time of the fall revealed Toileting program: check and change upon awake, before bed, before and after meals, at midnight, 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. Review of facility documentation revealed Resident 52 was seen earlier in the morning by an RN (Registered Nurse) at the facility at the dining room table. Resident 52 was scooching towards the edge of the Broda chair and was repositioned at that time. Further review of facility documentation revealed Resident 52 was seen approximately 30 minutes prior to the fall by two staff members. At that time, Resident 52 was also attempting to move forward in the Broda chair. The two staff members repositioned Resident 52 in the Broda chair. Review of facility investigative documentation revealed in section titled Post Fall Investigation revealed , Last time toileted (approximately): 0900 (9:00 a.m). Further review of same document revealed enquiry of Continent at time of fall: 'unknown -res (resident) transferred to ER, per FE nurse, resident did feel wet. Additional review of the facility investigative documentation revealed the toileting care plan was not followed and the root cause of the fall was failure to follow Resident 52's toileting care plan. Interview with Licensed Employee E3 on January 9, 2025, at 11:37 a.m. revealed that Resident 52's care plan was not followed and the facility re-educated facility staff on following the care plan. The facility failed to follow Resident 52's toileting care plan, resulting in a fall which required transfer to emergency room for evaluation, testing, and possible treatment due to a large hematoma to Resident 52's face causing actual harm to Resident 52. 28 Pa. Code 211.11(a)(d) Resident care plan 28 Pa. Code 211.12(a)(d)(5) Nursing services
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 upon review of facility policy and procedure, clinical records, and review of facility documentation, it was determined th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon review of facility policy and procedure, clinical records, and review of facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to investigate an incident that occurred as a result of possable abuse/neglect for one of one resident reviewed (Resident 52). Findings include: Review of facility policy and procedure titled Resident Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation of Property Prevention, revised December 2023, revealed All reports of abuse, as well as any situation where abuse is suspected, must be reported immediately to the Charge Nurse, and the Director of Nursing or supervisor on duty at the time. An investigation will be initiated immediately. Further review of the facility policy revealed Neglect refers to failure through inattentiveness, carelessness or omission to provide timely, consistent, safe, adequate and appropriate services, treatment and care including but not limited to: nutrition, medication, therapies and activities of daily living. Review of Resident 52's care plan for continence at the time of the fall revealed Toileting program: check and change upon awake, before bed, before and after meals, at midnight, 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 28, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. revealed Firbank East [FE] nurse heard a loud thump from lounge area, when FE nurse walked over to see what the noise was, FE nurse discovered [Resident 52] on the floor, laying on right side in front of Broda chair, laying parallel to TV stand. Resident stated I don't feel good. I feel dizzy. Resident assessment: oriented to self at baseline, lethargic, difficulty opening eyes and following commands, PERRL [pupils equal and reactive to light], large hematoma to right forehead measuring approximately 6 centimeters [cm] x 6 cm, c/o [complaining of] buttock pain, c/o dizziness and upset stomach. Education completed with FE staff regarding toileting care plan. Injuries: right forehead hematoma, skin slightly abrased but no bleeding or drainage. Further review of Resident 52's progress notes revealed Resident 52's power of attorney was notified, and it was agreed to send Resident 52 to an acute care facility to rule out a bleed in the head. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 28, 2024, at 9:58 p.m. revealed spoke with ER [emergency room] nurse at [acute care facility]. Report received - EKG [electrocardiogram] stable; CT scan of head and neck completed; both scans were negative. Resident cleared to return to facility. Review of Resident 52's progress notes dated December 29, 2024, at 1:33 a.m. revealed Resident returned from [acute care facility] at 00:10 a.m. to room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident awake and alert, at baseline with mentation; resident denies pain; bruising to right temple and right outer orbital. Resident had CT scans at [acute care facility] of head without contrast and of cervical spine. Head CT showed no acute intercranial abnormality, CT to spine showed no acute fracture. Resident was assessed. Resident had smear of feces to bilateral buttocks on return and was cleaned and brief put in place. Review of facility documentation revealed Resident 52 was seen earlier in the morning by an RN at the facility at the dining room table. Resident 52 was scooching towards the edge of the Broda chair and was repositioned at that time. Further review of facility documentation revealed Resident 52 was seen approximately 30 minutes prior to the fall by two staff persons. At that time, Resident 52 was also attempting to move forward in the Broda chair. The two staff persons repositioned Resident 52 in the Broda chair. Review of documentation revealed the cause of the fall was failure to follow Resident 52's toileting care plan. Interview with Licensed Employee E3 on January 9, 2025, at 11:37 a.m. revealed that when a resident's care plan is not followed, the facility re-educates facility staff on following the care plan and confirmed that staff was re-educated, however, no further investigation was conducted. This interview further revealed that abuse/neglect was not considered and an investigation into abuse/neglect was not conducted. 28 Pa. Code 211.11(a)(d) Resident care plan 28 Pa. Code 211.12(a)(d)(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 a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that assessments...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for one of 24 residents reviewed (Resident 58). Findings include: Review of Resident 58's discharge MDS (Minimum Data Assessment - periodic assessment of resident needs) assessment dated [DATE], Section A2105 Discharge Status, indicated that the resident was discharged to an acute hospital. Review of Resident 58's clinical record including the discharge/transfer summary dated December 5, 2024, revealed that the resident was discharged home on that date. During an interview with the RNAC , Employee E4, on January 9, 2025, at 11:50 a.m. confirmed that the resident was discharged home and that the MDS assessment was marked incorrectly. 483.20 Resident Assessments Previously cited 12/28/23 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records Previously cited 12/28/23 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services Previously cited 12/28/23
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and facility documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to comprehensively investigate an injury of u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and facility documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to comprehensively investigate an injury of unknown origin for one of the 13 residents reviewed (Resident 42). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Reporting Incidents/Accidents, last revised September 2018, revealed that if the etiology of the injury is not known, Injury of Unknown Origin Investigation will be initiated to investigate injury and rule out abuse, as well as to attempt to determine contributing factors/root cause. Staff caring for residents for 24 hours before injury will be interviewed to determine if there is any knowledge related to the skin injury. Review of Resident 42's diagnosis list revealed Dementia (group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking, and social abilities severely enough to interfere with daily life), and Bipolar Disorder (episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS- standardized assessment tool that measures health status in long-term care residents) dated October 17, 2023, revealed resident had a BIMS-(Brief Interview for Mental Status-tool used to screen and identify the cognitive condition of residents) of 10 indicating resident had a moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 42's nursing progress notes dated November 15, 2023, at 9:29 a.m., revealed resident was noted with bright red blood bleeding/dripping from the vagina. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) notified and assessed the resident. The resident denied trauma and inappropriate touching by herself and any other person. Denied pain or discomfort. Review of Resident 42's Nurse Practitioner notes dated November 15, 2023, at 10:02 a.m., revealed staff reported vaginal bleeding with clots, inspection revealed a cut on the resident's labia (Folds of skin around the vaginal opening) about ¼ cm and another skin flap cut on the same area with the same size. Some tenderness at the site when cleaning the resident, patient denies anyone touching her. Review of Resident 42's clinical record failed to reveal the possible/cause of the injury. Review of facility documentation failed to reveal completed statements from staff who cared for the resident. Interview with the Director of Nursing on December 28, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., confirmed witness statements from staff that cared for the residents were not completed. The facility failed to ensure Resident 42's skin tear to the labia with unknown origin was comprehensively investigated. Pa. 28 Code 211.5(f) Clinical Records Pa. 28 Code 211.10(c) Resident Care Policies Pa. 28 Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing Services
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
  • • 35% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 4 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Crosslands's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CROSSLANDS an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Crosslands Staffed?

CMS rates CROSSLANDS's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Crosslands?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at CROSSLANDS during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 3 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Crosslands?

CROSSLANDS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by KENDAL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 77% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in KENNETT SQUARE, Pennsylvania.

How Does Crosslands Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, CROSSLANDS's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (35%) 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 Crosslands?

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 Crosslands Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CROSSLANDS 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 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 Crosslands Stick Around?

CROSSLANDS has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Crosslands Ever Fined?

CROSSLANDS 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 Crosslands on Any Federal Watch List?

CROSSLANDS 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.

CROSSLANDS

1660 EAST STREET ROAD, KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348 | (610) 388-1441

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
4
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025