← Back to search results

JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BUCKS COUNTY REHAB AND SKD CARE

BENSALEM, PA · Bucks County · For profit - Corporation · 17 certified beds

📍 3200 Bensalem Boulevard, Bensalem, PA 19020  ·  📞 (215) 752-2370

Medicare ID: 395864  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Jun 18, 2025

Overall Safety Score
71
out of 100
Generally Positive
Component Scores
80
Inspection
100
Staffing
16
Enforcement
✓ None
Complaints
50
Quality
📋 Last inspected: June 18, 2025 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
80
Staffing
100
Enforcement
16
Complaints
100
Quality Outcomes
50

What the numbers mean

JUNIPER VILLAGE AT BUCKS COUNTY REHAB AND SKD CARE scored 71 out of 100 — 6 points above the state average of 65.

📋 Inspections: 39 citations over the last 36 months — 2 fewer than the state average (41). None were rated as causing actual harm to residents. 3 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing levels are strong — RN hours and total nurse hours per resident are in the favorable range. Adequate staffing is one of the most important factors in resident safety.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 6 enforcement actions totaling $27,396 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Low complaint activity — few formal complaints from residents or families have triggered inspections. Ask if there is a family council you can speak with.

⚠️ Resident quality outcomes: Some quality measures are below national benchmarks. Areas like fall prevention, pain management, or medication use may warrant closer attention.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks., The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

39
Total citations
State avg: 41.4
0
Serious (G+)
State avg: 1.2
3
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

21
6
Electrical & Utility Safety
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
3
Hazardous Areas & Fire Risks
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$27,396
Total federal fines
6
Enforcement actions

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 16/100 — 56 points below the state average of 72/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Fire safety: fire pump inspection and testing — No harm, could worsen · Jun 18, 2025
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance — No harm, could worsen · Sep 19, 2024
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance — No harm, could worsen · Nov 3, 2023
Federal Enforcement Actions on Record
Date Type Amount / Length
Jun 26, 2023 Fine $4,587
Jun 20, 2023 Fine $4,587
Jun 12, 2023 Fine $4,545
Jun 5, 2023 Fine $4,587
May 30, 2023 Fine $4,545
May 23, 2023 Fine $4,545

Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog — federal civil monetary penalties & payment denials, 2023–present.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
5.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Re-hospitalized after discharge
18.5% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
14.3% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care

Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Bensalem, Pa with 17 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 71/100, placing it in the Generally Positive range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Jun 18, 2025. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 39 citations and 3 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to penalties and enforcement, quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Corporation.

🟢
Overall Assessment — Generally Positive  ·  71/100
This facility performs well overall. A few areas are worth reviewing before making a final decision.
What to do next: Worth considering. Check the specific areas flagged below during your facility tour.
Federal Penalty: $40,682 (7 separate actions)
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $40,682 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is above average — few deficiencies, no serious findings.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 100
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 80
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 16
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 100
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 50
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to PA State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility PA avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
71 65 ▲ Better than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
80 52 ▲ Better than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
100 60 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
16 72 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
100 86 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
50 61 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
39 41.4 ▲ Better than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
0 1.2 ▲ Better than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2025-06-18
8 citations
2024-09-19
12 citations
2023-11-03
19 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2025-06-18 8 citation(s)
K0521 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire pump inspection and testing
Fire safety: fire pump inspection and testing. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0324 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0847 No harm, could worsen
F0847
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
K0100 No harm
Fire safety: general requirements
Fire safety: general requirements. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0355 No harm
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
Survey: 2024-09-19 12 citation(s)
K0918 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0211 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: safe exit routes
Fire safety: safe exit routes. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0761 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: inspection and testing documentation
Fire safety: inspection and testing documentation. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0914 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: outlets, wiring and equipment maintenance
Electrical safety: outlets, wiring and equipment maintenance. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0923 No harm, could worsen
Gas safety: medical gas storage and handling
Gas safety: medical gas storage and handling. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0374 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barrier doors must close properly
Fire safety: smoke barrier doors must close properly. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0623 No harm, could worsen
Notice before transfer or discharge
F0578 No harm, could worsen
F0578
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0881 No harm, could worsen
Infection preventionist qualifications
F0756 No harm, could worsen
Drug regimen review
F0655 No harm, could worsen
Baseline care plan
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
5.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
0.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
7.6% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
23.8% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
3.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
9.4% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
8.5% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
18.5% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 17.8% Expected: 23.0%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
14.3% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 13.3% Expected: 10.4%
▲ Higher than expected — worth asking about
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Can you walk us through the findings from your most recent state inspection and explain how each citation was addressed?
  2. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  3. Some resident outcome measures are below average here. What is your current approach to fall prevention, pain management, and quarterly medication review?
  4. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Inspection record is above average — verify improvements are maintained
  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No serious-harm citations (G+) in the public record
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-06-16
71 — Good

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 PRESSLER, STEPHANIE operates 2 facilities across CO.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
PRESSLER, STEPHANIE Individual 1970-01-01
FALCON CAPITAL LLC Organization 1970-01-01
JUNIPER MANAGEMENT, LLC Organization 1970-01-01
COPPERHILL ASSOCIATES LLC Organization 1970-01-01
POITRAS, PATRICIA Individual 1970-01-01
DONATO, LINDA Individual 1970-01-01
POITRAS, JAMES Individual 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care?
Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care has an independently computed Safety Score of 71 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care located?
Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care is located in Bensalem, PA. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care have?
Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care is certified for 17 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on June 18, 2025. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Juniper Village At Bucks County Rehab And Skd Care, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 27, 2026.