Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: COLEV GESTETNER (7 facilities, chain avg rating 4.6★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 4, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 4, 2025
$24,065
Fines, last 3 years
3.71
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 13, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 26, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 22, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. F-0657
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. F-0744
View all 15 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Dec 4, 2025
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 4, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Dec 4, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744
Nov 15, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610
Nov 15, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Nov 15, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jun 4, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626
Jan 26, 2024
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jan 26, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jan 26, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jan 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Jan 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Jan 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Jan 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835
Jan 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (3 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
12
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2025
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2024
12
1
G ▲
2025
3
1
G ▲
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jan 26, 2024
Fine
$24,065
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityPennsylvania averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.71
Pennsylvania average:
3.94
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.48
Pennsylvania average:
0.80
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.54
Pennsylvania average:
3.58
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Pennsylvania avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.71
3.94
3.95
top 48% in Pennsylvania; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.48
0.80
0.69
bottom 23% in Pennsylvania; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.54
3.58
3.50
top 41% in Pennsylvania; top 40% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.38
0.56
0.48
bottom 41% in Pennsylvania; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
45.9
44.5
45.8
bottom 46% in Pennsylvania; bottom 47% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
37.5
39.9
42.9
top 47% in Pennsylvania; top 42% in the U.S.
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.78, RN 0.49, weekend 3.61.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.78 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Gwynedd Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
All 5 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Colev Gestetner — 7 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
CMS records place this facility in Montgomery, PA — 58 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 395479.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Gwynedd Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
773 Sumneytown Pike, Lansdale, PA 19446 · (215) 699-5000
Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $24,065
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Dec 4, 2025 (F-0689, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Jan 26, 2024 (F-0689, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
☐ "What specific dementia training do your staff receive, and how do you handle difficult moments without medication?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "If my family member is hospitalized, what is your bed-hold policy and what guarantees their right to return?"
☐ "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
☐ "CMS reports 46% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 395479 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)