SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Suburban Woods Health & Rehabilitation in Norristown, Pennsylvania has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates it is decent and slightly above average. It ranks #238 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and #30 out of 58 in Montgomery County, suggesting it has some competition but is still a viable option. The facility's trend is stable, with 7 identified issues both in 2024 and 2025, indicating no significant improvement or decline. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 34%, which is better than the state average, but there is concerning RN coverage, lower than 81% of state facilities. They have $7,443 in fines, which is average, but recent inspections revealed some serious concerns, such as food safety issues in the kitchen and delays in meal service that upset residents. Additionally, residents reported not being invited to participate in their care planning, which is a significant oversight. Overall, while the facility has strengths in staffing stability, there are important areas that need attention, particularly in food service and resident engagement.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Pennsylvania
- #238/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $7,443 in fines. Higher than 82% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- 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
- 22 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 (34%)
14 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
12pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon interviews with residents and staff, review of clinical records, facility documentation and policy, it was determined...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, review of clinical record, and staff interview, it was det...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0840
(Tag F0840)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure timely prov...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility did not maintain complete and accurate medical records related to diagnoses for physician ordered medicati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of resident records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility did not ensure antibiotics were ad...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepar...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**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 the Minimum...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
7 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 observations and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policies, review of clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans related to medication administrat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility policy, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate Activity of Daily Living (ADL)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of safety data sheet, review of facility documentation, review of clinical records, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, review of facility policy and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 the review of facility policy, observations and interviews with resident and staff, it was determined that the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility documentation, observations, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure meals were served in accordance with resident preferenc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0559
(Tag F0559)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policies, clinical record reviews and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and clinical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a comfortable and homelike...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on stafff interviews and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a person-centered plan of care was developed for one resident with a history of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, review of facility policy and the review of clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygen administration f...
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 staff interviews, review of facility policy and the review of the clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received care and services for the prov...
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 observation, interview with staff and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that controlled substances were stored in a safe and secure compartment f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on resident and staff interviews, review of faciltiypolicy and review of the clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with the opportun...
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.
- • 34% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Suburban Woods Health & Reha's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA 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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha Staffed?
CMS rates SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Suburban Woods Health & Reha?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA during 2023 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Suburban Woods Health & Reha?
SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA 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 119 certified beds and approximately 105 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NORRISTOWN, Pennsylvania.
How Does Suburban Woods Health & Reha Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (34%) 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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha?
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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA 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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha Stick Around?
SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha Ever Fined?
SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,153. 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 Suburban Woods Health & Reha on Any Federal Watch List?
SUBURBAN WOODS HEALTH & REHA 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.