No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Carleton-Willard Village Retirement & Nursing Ctr

100 Old Billerica Road, Bedford, MA 01730 · Non profit - Corporation · 179 certified beds · (781) 275-8700 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (781) 275-8700 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jun 20252 actual-harm citations3 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$25,497 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $25,497 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-10)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
200 Springs Road, Building 2 and 78
Pharmacy
337 Great Road · (781) 271-9403 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
337 Great Road, Great Road Shopping Center
Park
(781) 275-1392 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
276 Old Billerica Rd · (781) 686-5526

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased18.6%16.4%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.9%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.7%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.6%15.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.2%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.0%15.4%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.6%19.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.9%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.4%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control22.1%21.2%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table11.4%21.4%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.6%77.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission10.2%25.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.7%11.9%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.341.881.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.101.501.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

40.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

40.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
66.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.52U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.22hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 66.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 50 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF40.8%CMS range 32.9–51.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.8%CMS range 5.5–13.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge66.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge60.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge64.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.6%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.5%CMS range 3.9–10.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.001.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.97
RN hours/ resident / day
0.87
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.33
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.17
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.87
RN hoursweekends
32.3%
Total nursing turnover
25.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 179 beds and averages 92.3 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 87 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.17 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.33 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.27 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.87 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-13)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-07)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who required two staff members assistance with the mechanical sling lift for all transfers, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was free from neglect, when on 06/03/25 Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, although she was aware of facility policy and that Resident #1 required an assist of two staff persons for transfers with a mechanical sling lift, CNA #1 transferred Resident #1 by herself, and he/she fell from lift on to the floor. CNA #1 also did not immediately report the fall to nursing so Resident #1 could be assessed for potential injury prior to being moved, but instead physically picked Resident #1 up off the floor by herself and put him/her back into bed. Once Resident #1 was back in bed, she still did not report the incident to nursing. Over two and a half hours later, Resident #1 was found to be bleeding from a cut on back of his/her head, had bruising on his/her back and left hip area, was complaining of severe back and left shoulder pain, was transferred to the Hospital Emergency…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-06-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose comprehensive plan of care interventions indicated that he/she required the assistance of two staff members with the mechanical sling lift for all transfers, the Facility failed to ensure that staff consistently implemented and followed interventions related to transfers per his/her plan of care. On 06/03/25, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 attempted to transfer Resident #1 without the assistance from any other staff member, during the transfer the left upper clip on the mechanical sling lift became disconnected and Resident #1 fell to the floor. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation and was diagnosed with several fractured ribs, fractured left scapula, several spinal fractures, bilateral subdural bleeds, a head laceration, and other internal injuries. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Baseline and Comprehensive Person-Centered Care, dated as revised 06/01/24, indicated the Facility would develop and implement a comprehensive…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-06-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who required two staff member assistance using the mechanical sling lift for all transfers, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff assistance to maintain his/her safety and prevent an incident/accident resulting in significant injuries. On the morning of 06/03/25, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 attempted to transfer Resident #1 without another staff member present to assist her, and during the transfer the upper left clip of the sling unattached from the lift, and Resident #1 fell around four feet onto the floor. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) and was diagnosed with several fractured ribs, fractured left scapula, several spinal fractures, bilateral subdural bleeds, a head laceration, and other internal injuries. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled, Transfer Utilizing a Mechanical Lift, dated as revised September 2023, indicated two licensed or certified staff were needed to do a Mechanical Lift…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, and whose comprehensive plan of care indicated he/she required the use of monitoring devices (bed and chair alarms) to alert staff when he/she attempted to stand or transfer alone, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed interventions identified in his/her plan of care, when alarms were not consistently used by staff, and he/she experienced two falls less than 24 hours apart, both of which resulted in an injury. After fall on 5/08/24, Resident #1 sustained a head laceration that required six staples to close, and on 5/09/24, Resident #1 fell again, fractured his/her nose and had a large hematoma (bruise) on his/her forehead. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Baseline and Comprehensive Person-Centered Care, dated as revised on 06/15/21, indicated nursing staff would implement a plan of care for each resident to provide effective…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, had a fall on 5/08/24 with an injury, was known to be impulsive and whose fall risk interventions included the use of monitoring devices (bed and chair alarms) to alert staff when he/she rose from a sitting or lying position, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary safety devices and level of staff supervision to maintain his/her safety, when on 05/09/24 Certified Nurse Aide #1 assisted Resident #1 to the toilet, removed his/her alarm and left him/her unattended in the bathroom to go get supplies. Resident #1 fell in the bathroom, struck his/her face on the floor, and as a result, was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department where he/she was diagnosed with a nasal bone fracture and large forehead hematoma (bruise). Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Fall Prevention Protocol, dated 11/13/17, indicated staff would…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-02-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled and dated once opened, according to manufacturer's guidelines, in three out of three medication carts. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Storage of Medications, dated 4/26/21, indicated the following: It is the policy of [NAME]-[NAME] Village that medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacture's recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. -Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from inventory, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal, and reordered from the pharmacy, of a current order exists. During an observation on 2/6/25 at 8:47 A.M., the following medications were…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one Resident (#72) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, for Resident #72: a.) the facility failed to ensure covered cups for hot beverages were implemented as directed by the plan of care. b.) the facility failed to ensure staff cut up food as directed by the plan of care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Baseline and Comprehensive Person-Centered Care', revised 6/1/24, indicated, but was not limited to the following: - The comprehensive care plan must describe the following: services to attain or maintain the Resident's highest practicable, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, and any services that would otherwise be required by are not provided due to the Resident's exercise of rights. - The Residents have the right to refuse treatment and the rationale to be stated in the medical records. - Services provided will be in consultation with the Resident and the Resident's representative. Resident #72 was…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), who had a history of having sustained a subdural hematoma (pool of blood between the brain and it;s outer covering), the Facility failed to ensure staff provided quality of care consistent with professional standards of practice, when on 5/19/24 after finding Resident #2 on the floor after an unwitnessed fall, two Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) picked him/her up off the floor and put him/her in bed before informing and having nursing assess him/her for the potential for injury, and as a result, his/her neurological signs were not measured or documented per facility policy in the event of an unwitnessed fall, by nursing. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Actual Fall Protocol, dated as revised on 05/03/18, indicated a fall was defined as a problem characterized by the failure to maintain an appropriate lying or sitting position, resulting in an individual's abrupt, undesired relocation to the ground. The Policy indicated that all falls were to be assessed and treated immediately to…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who had a diagnosis of dementia and was cognitively impaired, the Facility failed to ensure care and treatment provided by nursing met professional standards of practice when on 08/28/23, Nurse #7 did not properly identify Resident #1 prior to administering him/her medications and administered another resident's medications to him/her. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Medication Administration, dated as revised 12/01/19, indicated it was the Facility Policy that licensed nurses administer medications from a mobile medication cart and use a system which demonstrates both safety and efficiency when administering medications to residents. The Policy indicated all residents are identified using the photograph in the Medication Administration Book. The Policy further indicated each medication is checked three times prior to administration to the resident and that the first check included checking the order and medication card as well as for the right resident. The Policy…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3), the Facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medications errors when 1) on 08/28/23 Resident #1 was administered medications that were ordered for and were to be administered to another resident and 2) on 08/16/23 Physician's Orders for a diuretic medication were not transcribed onto Resident #3's Medication Administration Record and were therefore not administered as ordered. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Medication Administration, dated as revised 12/01/19, indicated all residents are identified using the photograph in the Medication Administration Book. 1) Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in March 2022, diagnoses included dementia, depression, gout, Vitamin D deficiency, peripheral vascular disease, edema, and osteoarthritis. Review of the Facility Medication Error Report, dated 08/28/23, indicated that at 8:30 A.M. Resident #1 was administered medications ordered for another resident which included the following…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #3) the Facility failed to ensure they maintained complete and accurate Medical Records when Medication Administration Record documentation was not consistently completed for Resident #3 related to the administration of a diuretic medication during the month of August 2023. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Medication Pass Observation Tool, dated as revised 2018, indicated documentation of medication administration is completed accurately and charted consistently. Resident #3 was admitted to the Facility in February 2022, diagnoses included dementia, atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular block, depression, syncope, congestive heart failure, and osteoarthritis. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Order, dated 08/14/23, indicated he/she was to be administered Lasix 40 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth daily. Review of Resident #3's Medication Administration Record (MAR), for August 2023, indicated on 08/15/23 documentation for his/her Lasix 40 mg tablet by mouth daily at 9:00 A.M. had been…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$25,497 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $16,985 — penalty dated 2025-06-10
  • $8,512 — penalty dated 2024-05-29

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CARLETON-WILLARD HOMES INCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 12/23/1980
MATTHEWS, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/10/2023
MANCINI, LAURENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/17/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$39.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-4.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 21%Medicare 5%Other / private 74%

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$865per resident / day
operating cost
$26,309per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$830per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in MA

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Massachusetts Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Massachusetts
$14,448/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,817/mo
Nursing home (private)
$9,600/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 225273. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next