AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Aventura at Pembroke has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #529 out of 653 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and #20 out of 20 in Chester County, meaning it is the lowest-ranked facility in the area. The facility's performance is worsening, having gone from 6 issues in 2024 to 7 in 2025, and it has accumulated a concerning $227,133 in fines, higher than 93% of facilities in Pennsylvania. Staffing ratings are poor with a score of 1 out of 5, but there is a 0% turnover rate, which is good, suggesting that staff stay at the facility. Specific incidents include a failure to adequately supervise residents, leading to a critical situation where one resident was able to physically assault another, as well as failures in providing proper nutrition to residents on enteral feeding, indicating serious gaps in care. Overall, while there are some strengths in staff retention, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should carefully consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Pennsylvania
- #529/653
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $227,133 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 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
Below Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
7 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to create a comprehensive hospice care plan with interventions for one of two residents reviewed (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based upon clinical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed regard...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based on observation, review of facility policy, clinical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ...
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** Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based upon facility policy and procedure, clinical record review and int...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement no...
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 facility clinical records review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly document the Medication Administration Report for one of 28 residents reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving enteral feeding (also known as tube feed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, medical record review, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for 1 of 1 (Resident 98) by not allowing th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 records review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders reg...
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 observation, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately monitor and assess residents for side effects of antipsychotic medications for one of five re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
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 therapy services to prevent...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan including discharge planning for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R1).
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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
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 a review of the facility's policy, clinical records review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
6 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and interviews with the staff it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implemen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical records review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to recommendations made by the consultant pharmacist for one of the five residents reviewed ...
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 F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents are free from unnecessary drugs without adequate indications for its use for one of ...
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 facility policy and procedure review, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to monitor for side effects for antipsychotic medications for one of fi...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical records review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders regarding administration of medications for three of the 30 residents revie...
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 facility policy and clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain and monitor weights for three of seven residents reviewed for nutrition (...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon clinical record review and staff interviews it was determined that Aventura at Pembrooke failed to ensure Resident R3...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and facility documentation review, and staff interviews it was determined that...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and facility documentation review, and staff interviews it was determined that...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to update a ...
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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on a review of their job descriptions it was determined that the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) did not effectively manage the facility to ensure adequate sup...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $227,133 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $227,133 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Pennsylvania. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aventura At Pembrooke's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Aventura At Pembrooke Staffed?
CMS rates AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aventura At Pembrooke?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 22 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Aventura At Pembrooke?
AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE 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 AVENTURA HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 125 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WEST CHESTER, Pennsylvania.
How Does Aventura At Pembrooke Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aventura At Pembrooke?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aventura At Pembrooke Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Aventura At Pembrooke Stick Around?
AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Aventura At Pembrooke Ever Fined?
AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE has been fined $227,133 across 1 penalty action. This is 6.4x the Pennsylvania average of $35,350. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Aventura At Pembrooke on Any Federal Watch List?
AVENTURA AT PEMBROOKE 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.