REST HAVEN-YORK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Rest Haven-York has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #345 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the bottom half, and #6 out of 14 in York County, meaning only five local options are rated better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a below-average 2 out of 5 stars and less RN coverage than 99% of Pennsylvania facilities, which can impact the quality of care. Specific incidents of concern include a medication error that led to a resident being hospitalized and failures to protect residents' privacy and ensure safe food service practices. While there are strengths, such as a low staff turnover rate of 30%, families should weigh these alongside the weaknesses before making a decision.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Pennsylvania
- #345/653
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near Pennsylvania's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $9,311 in fines. Lower than most Pennsylvania facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Pennsylvania. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 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
-
Staff turnover below average (30%)
18 points below Pennsylvania average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
15pts below Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
9 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
Based on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and home-like environment for one of 30 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
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 that the facility failed to conduct a Significant Change ...
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 facility policy review, observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out act...
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
Based on clinical record review, hospital record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services that met professional standards for one of 30 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and services consistent with professional standards...
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 facility policy review, clinical records review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observations, clinical record reviews, facility document review, and staff interviews, it was determined...
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 facility policy review, observation, review of select facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize kitchen equipment in accordance with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility investigation, clinical record review, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility displayed past noncompliance, in that they had failed to ensure residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
4 deficiencies
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 clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident assessme...
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 facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the resident plan of care for two of 28 residents reviewe...
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 clinical record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to precisely and effectively monitor hydration status and implement a therapeutic diet f...
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 review of facility policy, observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
9 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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, hospital record review, facility incident report, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the prevention of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her pe...
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 clinical record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain adequate personal hygiene and grooming of residents dependent o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a pressure ulcer received care consistent with pro...
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, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store medication in locked compartments under proper temperature controls for one of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of manufacture product packaging, review of facility policy, and interview, it was determined that ...
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 clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to residents receiving tube feedings for one of two resident re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure one of 28 residents reviewed were free of unnecessary medications (Resident 51).
Findings incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility records, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed...
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
- • 30% turnover. Below Pennsylvania's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Rest Haven-York's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns REST HAVEN-YORK an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Rest Haven-York Staffed?
CMS rates REST HAVEN-YORK's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rest Haven-York?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at REST HAVEN-YORK during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 22 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Rest Haven-York?
REST HAVEN-YORK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 159 certified beds and approximately 131 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in YORK, Pennsylvania.
How Does Rest Haven-York Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, REST HAVEN-YORK's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (30%) 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 Rest Haven-York?
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 Rest Haven-York Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, REST HAVEN-YORK 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 3-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 Rest Haven-York Stick Around?
REST HAVEN-YORK has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Rest Haven-York Ever Fined?
REST HAVEN-YORK has been fined $9,311 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,172. 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 Rest Haven-York on Any Federal Watch List?
REST HAVEN-YORK 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.