CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES

99 BARCLAY STREET, NEWTOWN, PA 18940 (215) 860-4000
Non profit - Corporation 53 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
93/100
#15 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Chandler Hall Health Services has received a Trust Grade of A, indicating it is highly recommended and performs excellently compared to other facilities. It ranks #15 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half of the state, and #3 out of 29 in Bucks County, meaning only two local options are better. However, the facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, with a perfect 5/5 star rating and only 28% turnover, which is significantly lower than the state average, meaning staff tend to stay and are familiar with residents. On the downside, there have been some concerns regarding sanitary conditions and medication storage; for example, expired food items were found in the kitchen and medication carts were left unlocked, posing potential risks. Overall, while Chandler Hall has many strengths, families should be aware of the recent issues that need to be addressed.

Trust Score
A
93/100
In Pennsylvania
#15/653
Top 2%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 52 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Low Staff Turnover (28%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (28%)

    20 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Pennsylvania's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

May 2025 2 deficiencies
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, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medications on two of three hallways on the nursing unit. (100 hallway a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store medications on two of three hallways on the nursing unit. (100 hallway and 300 hallway) Review of the facility policy entitled, Security of Medication Cart, last reviewed February 24, 2025, revealed that medication carts must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurse's view. Observation on May 13, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. through 10:33 a.m., revealed the medication cart was unlocked and unattended on the 100 hallway. Observation on May 15, 2025, from 9:35 a.m. through 9:40 a.m., revealed the medication cart was unlocked and unattended on the 300 hallway. In an interview on May 15, 2025, at 9:40 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse 1 confirmed that the medication carts should have been locked. In an interview on May 15, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the medication carts should have been locked. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative of their appeal rights and Ombudsman informa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative of their appeal rights and Ombudsman information in writing upon transfer from the facility for three of 12 sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Residents 2, 33, and 37) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 2 was transferred to the hospital on March 27, 2025, and April 25, 2025, after changes in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party, or the legal representative was provided information regarding appeal rights and Ombudsman information upon transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 33 was transferred to the hospital on May 7, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party, or the legal representative was provided information regarding appeal rights and Ombudsman information upon transfer to the hospital. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 37 was transferred to the hospital on April 14, 2025, after a change in condition. There was no documented evidence that the resident, the resident's responsible party, or the legal representative was provided information regarding appeal rights and Ombudsman information upon transfer to the hospital. In an interview on May 15, 2025, at 1:43 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the identified residents and/or their representatives were not provided with transfer notices that included the required information.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency
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, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications/biologicals were securely stored in one of one medication stora...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications/biologicals were securely stored in one of one medication storage rooms. (Medication and Treatment Room) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Controlled Substances, last reviewed on February 25, 2024, revealed that controlled substances listed as Schedule II-V of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1976 are to be separately locked in permanently affixed compartments. Observation on June 13, 2024, at 11:20 a.m., revealed the Medication and Treatment Room had controlled substances that were stored in a locked box inside a refrigerator. The locked box was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator and contained 35 doses of lorazepam suppositories. In an interview on June 13, 2024, at 12:23 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that the medication box should have been permanently affixed in the locked refrigerator. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
Jul 2023 4 deficiencies
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 policy review, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party of a significant weight loss for one of two sampled residents with weight changes. (Residents 35) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Weight Policy, dated August 17, 2022, revealed that any unplanned significant weight changes were to be reported to the physician and the resident's representative. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 35 had diagnoses that included dysphagia following cerebral infarction and chronic kidney disease, stage 4. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had cognitive impairment and received tube feedings for his nutritional requirements. On April 26, 2023, the resident weighed 151 pounds (lbs). On May 25, 2023, Resident 35 weighed 138 lbs, an 8.61 percent weight loss in one month. There was no documented evidence that Resident 35's responsible party was notified of the significant weight loss. In an interview on July 7, 2023, at 12:18 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated there was no documented evidence that Resident 35's responsible party was notified of the significant weight loss. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(c) Resident rights. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to properly contain refuse in a sanitary manner. Findings include: Observation on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., revealed that there was...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to properly contain refuse in a sanitary manner. Findings include: Observation on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., revealed that there was trash and debris, including clear plastic bags and paper on the ground around the trash compactor. The recycling dumpster contained cardboard and the lid was open. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
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, review of policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions and store food properly in the kitchen. (Main Kitchen) Findings i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions and store food properly in the kitchen. (Main Kitchen) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Food Storage, dated August 17, 2022, revealed that products in storage were to be labeled with the date on delivery and once the product was opened the package was to be labeled with an opened and discard date. Observation during tour of the main kitchen dry storage room and refrigerator/freezers on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., revealed an open unwrapped 25 pound bag of whole grain brown rice received September 1, 2022, one open case of frozen egg rolls shipped September 15, 2022, one open case breaded chicken tenderloin received September 29, 2022, one jar of capers with no expiration date. The following items were past the expiration date: five boxes of grits, best by October 24, 2022, two bottles of white truffle oil with expiration dates of September 28, 2018, and September 27, 2019, one open low fat cottage cheese use by June 15, 2023, one low fat cottage cheese with best by date of June 23, 2023, two plastic containers of dressing, use by May 11, 2023, butter and chive mix use by July 1, 2023, half gallon whole milk, expired June 15, 2023, three wrapped beef packages, use by May 17, 2023. In the freezer there was a layer of frost on the outside of the food packages and boxes. Review of the policy entitled, Cleaning Instructions: Ovens, dated August 17, 2022, revealed that ovens were to be cleaned as needed and according to the cleaning schedule at least once every two weeks. Spills and food particles were to be removed after each use. Observations on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., and July 6, 2023, at 11:05 a.m., revealed both ovens had a grease buildup on the inside walls, the inside of the doors, and on the oven racks. There were three stained oven racks stored on the floor behind a cookware rack and next to the ovens. Review of the policy entitled, Cleaning Instructions: Deep Fat Fryer, dated August 17, 2022, revealed that the deep fat fryer oil was to be changed at least every 10 times the fryer was used. When the oil color changed to a dark brown, the oil should be changed. Food particles were to be removed from the oil after each use. Further, the baskets were to be cleaned by running them through the dish machine and wiping them dry prior to storage. Observations on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., and July 6, 2023, at 11:05 a.m., revealed the deep fat fryer oil was dark brown and contained debris. Two fryer baskets were coated with grease and were stored on a stainless steel shelf that had grease and debris on it. Observations on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., and July 6, 2023, at 11:05 a.m., revealed the table top under the grill was wet with brown liquid spillage and debris. In an interview on July 5, 2023, at 11:10 a.m., the Food Service Director stated that food was to be dated prior to storage and disposed of when items expired. The Food Service Director stated there was no documentation to support that cleaning was scheduled or being completed per facility policy. 28 Pa.Code 201.18(b)(1)(3) Management. 28 Pa. Code 207.2(a) Administrator's responsibility.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment on three of three nursing units. (Nursing unit 1, 2 and 3) Findings include: O...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment on three of three nursing units. (Nursing unit 1, 2 and 3) Findings include: Observation during all days of the survey revealed the following: On unit 100 hall, one sit to stand transfer lift had diry wheels. On unit 200 hall, a utility room accordion door panel was broken and a chair scale had dirty wheels. On unit 300 hall, two sit to stand transfer lifts and one transfer lift equipment had dirty wheels. In the dining area, the resident's refrigerator had dried spillage stains on the crisper drawer glass and in one crisper drawer. 28 Pa Code: 201.18(b)(3) Management.
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 A (93/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
  • • 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.
  • • 28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Chandler Hall Health Services's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES 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 Chandler Hall Health Services Staffed?

CMS rates CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 28%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Chandler Hall Health Services?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES during 2023 to 2025. These included: 5 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Chandler Hall Health Services?

CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 53 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEWTOWN, Pennsylvania.

How Does Chandler Hall Health Services Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (28%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chandler Hall Health Services?

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 Chandler Hall Health Services Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES 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 Chandler Hall Health Services Stick Around?

Staff at CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 28%, the facility is 18 percentage points below the Pennsylvania 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.

Was Chandler Hall Health Services Ever Fined?

CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES 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 Chandler Hall Health Services on Any Federal Watch List?

CHANDLER HALL HEALTH SERVICES 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.