PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Parkhouse Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. They rank #472 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing them in the bottom half, and #46 of 58 in Montgomery County, suggesting limited local options for better care. The facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is rated 2 out of 5, with a 54% turnover rate, which is average, but RN coverage is concerning as it is less than 94% of other Pennsylvania facilities, potentially impacting resident care. Recent inspections revealed serious incidents, including failures to properly assess and treat pressure ulcers for multiple residents, leading to actual harm. Additionally, there were concerns about improper waste management, indicating potential issues with cleanliness and hygiene. While there are some positive aspects, such as good quality measures, families should carefully consider the facility's significant weaknesses.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Pennsylvania
- #472/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $8,190 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
4 deficiencies
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of facility policy, nursing unit observations, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment on one of four nursing unit...
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
Based on review of facility documents, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activity of daily living (ADL) assistance for 11 of 17 res...
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
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of facility documents, nursing unit observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities to meet the interests 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
Deficiency F0807
(Tag F0807)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide drinking water consistent with resident needs and preferences for one out of four uni...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2025
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
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 a review of the facility's policy, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to tim...
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 upon clinical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an accurate Minimum Data Set As...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of facility policy, clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure weights were monitored and a significant weight change was promptly ad...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the Pennsylvania Professional Nursing Practice Act, facility policy and procedure, observations, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that staff met ...
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
Based on review of the facility policies and procedures, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident receives the appropriate treatment to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of manufacturer's guidelines clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly administer medications to a resident and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
Based on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician was notified about changes in condition for one o...
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
Based on review of facility policy and clinical records, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately monitor weight loss for one of seven residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident 277).
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based upon review of facility policies and procedures, observation and review of clinical documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure fluid restrictions were followed for three out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on Observations and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to dispose of trash properly.
Findings Include:
Observation of the trash compacter area on August 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m....
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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
Based on a review of the facility's policy, clinical records, facility documentation, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to comprehensively assess, monitor, ...
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 F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on a review of the facility's policy, observation, clinical records review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to update a skin care plan for one of the two resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical records review, and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order regarding blood sugar monitoring for one of t...
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
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 facility's policy review, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 BEDROCK CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 467 certified beds and approximately 289 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a large facility located in ROYERSFORD, Pennsylvania.
How Does Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?
PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 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 Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?
PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $8,190 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,161. 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 Parkhouse Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
PARKHOUSE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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.