Casa De Ramana Rehabilitation Center
485 Franklin Street, Framingham, MA 01702 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 124 certified beds · (508) 872-8801 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0604), cited Sep 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-03)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 3 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.9% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 20.8% | 15.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.8% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.6% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.3% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.8% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.5% | 21.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.1% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.92 | 1.88 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.70 | 1.50 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
61.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 167 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.2% 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 80 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.2%CMS range 54.3–68.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.1%CMS range 6.8–13.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 56.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 46.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 8.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.5–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 124 beds and averages 106.2 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 is below 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% 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
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.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-03 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who was moderately cognitively impaired, with behaviors that included unsafe rising and disrobing, the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from the use of a physical restraint imposed for the purpose of staff convenience when on 08/14/24 during the overnight shift, sometime between 5:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. (exact time unknown), Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 and CNA #2 transferred Resident #1 into his/her a tilt back wheelchair, CNA #1 then placed a blanket across Resident #1's torso/lap area, then tied the blanket behind his/her wheelchair securing it snuggly in place, and then both CNA's left the room to care for other residents. Although CNA #2 witnessed CNA #1 tie the blanket in place, CNA #2 did not report it to anyone, and Resident #1 was left in his/her tilt back wheelchair secured by the blanket for at least three hours, until a staff member on the following shift discovered it and released the blanket. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse Prohibition…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-26 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that information to file a grievance or complaint was readily available to residents during their facility stay, for seven Residents out of 13 residents. Specifically, for seven residents attending the Resident Council group meeting during the facility survey, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to grievance/concern/complaint forms so the residents could formulate grievances anonymously, should they choose not to alert a staff member of their concern(s). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights and Responsibilities Guideline, last revised 9/27/18, indicated: -upon admission the Director of Admissions/Designee provided residents with a copy of Residents Rights. -you may voice grievances concerning your care without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Review of the facility's policy titled Resident- Grievance Guideline, last revised 6/26/19, indicated that it is the policy of this organization to: -support each Resident's right to voice concerns/grievances. -uphold the…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete a Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- screen to determine if a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability (ID or DD) and/or serious mental illness (SMI) and needed further evaluation) for one Resident (#87), out of a total sample of 22 total residents. Specifically, for Resident #87, the facility failed to accurately complete a Level I PASRR indicating that the Resident had a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, and received emergency psychiatric services while hospitalized within the last two years in the community, resulting in a Level II PASRR Evaluation (an evaluation conducted to determine if an individual who screened positive for an SMI or ID/DD requires specialized services) not being completed as required. Findings include: Resident #87 was admitted to the facility in November 2023, with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs [mania or hypomania] and lows [depression]), Anxiety…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs: fundamental skills required to independently care for oneself, such as eating, bathing, and mobility) care and services pertaining to mobility for one Resident (#106), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide care and services that would maintain and/or improve Resident #106's functional mobility when the Resident was discontinued from Physical Therapy (PT) services and required the assistance of one staff member with ambulation. Findings include: Resident #106 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including muscle weakness (lack of muscle strength), Wernicke's Encephalopathy (a brain and memory disorder caused by a lack of thiamine [vitamin B1], that causes mental confusion, vision problems, and lack of muscle coordination), Metabolic Encephalopathy (altered mental status) and Cognitive Communication Deficit (difficulty in…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs- fundamental skills required to independently care for oneself, such as eating, bathing, and mobility) for one Resident (#1) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provided personal hygiene assistance for nail trimming and cleaning. Findings include: Review of the Facility policy titled ADL Support Guideline, dated 8/10/17, indicated: -Residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in August 2021, with diagnoses including Non-Traumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain that occurs without trauma or surgery), Intraventricular (a sudden bleeding in the tissues and ventricles of the brain) and Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and Hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-03 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 moderate cognitive impairment, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy when on 08/14/24 sometime between 5:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. (exact time unknown), after witnessing Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 put a blanket across Resident #1's lap/torso and secure it in place by tying it behind his/her wheelchair, CNA #2 did not report the incident to Nurse #1 or Administration, and Resident #1 remained in his/her room, unattended by staff, secured in his/her wheelchair for at least three hours before another staff member discovered and released it. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse Prohibition Guideline, dated as review 10/24/22, indicated the following: -the resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and physical and chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms, -…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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, record reviews, policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience for two Residents (#61 and #103) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility staff did not promote dignity for Residents #61 and #103, by standing over both residents rather than sitting at eye level, while assisting them with their meals. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for Dignity, dated 9/20/18, indicated that residents who require staff assistance for feeding shall be fed by a staff member who is seated in a chair next to the residents, and staff shall not feed residents while in a standing position. 1. Resident #61 admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia (a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally) and Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquid). Review of Resident #61's care plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) last revised 6/20/23, indicated an…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide necessary activities of daily living (ADLs-bathing, dressing, grooming) for one Resident (#80), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to provide grooming pertaining to facial hair removal for Resident #80, who was unable to carry out his/her own ADLs. Findings include: Resident #80 was admitted to the facility in August 2020 with diagnoses including severe Dementia with agitation, and symptoms involving impaired cognitive functions. Review of Resident #80's care plan titled ADLs, revised 6/29/23, indicated the Resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit and the goal was to maintain the current level of function in ADLs. Review of Resident #80's care plan titled Alteration in Musculoskeletal Status Related to Right Wrist Drop, revised 6/29/23, indicated the following intervention: -Assist with ADLs and feeding if needed. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE],…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained as free of accidental hazards for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #77 did not maintain smoking materials on his/herself as agreed by his/her signing the facility smoking policy. Findings include: Review of the facility's Smoking Guideline policy, dated 4/21/23, indicated the following: -According to State Fire Safety Codes, the Administrator/designees implements methods for the storage of smoking materials, i.e.: matches, lighters, and cigarettes per safety codes. -The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) ensures a Safe Smoking Evaluation is completed at the time of admission and/or when a resident expresses a desire to smoke (this must be completed for electronic cigarette/vaping devices also). -A Safe Smoking Evaluation will also be completed on a quarterly basis thereafter, and during a significant change of condition. -The evaluation is reviewed by the IDT for ongoing evaluation of…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-18 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Dialysis (a treatment use to clean the blood when the kidneys are not able remove waste and extra fluids in the blood) care and services for one Resident (#36), out of two applicable residents, in a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, for Resident #36, the facility failed to ensure that post dialysis weights were documented as ordered by the Physician. Findings include: Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with a diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD-disease characterized by progressive damage and loss of function in the kidneys). Review of Resident #36's dialysis care plan dated 6/22/23, included the following: -Goal: Resident shall attend dialysis appointments as scheduled through the next review. -Intervention: Coordinate services with Dialysis. Monitor labs and vital signs as ordered. Review of a Physician's order dated 6/23/23, indicated: -Dialysis Days: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 6:30 A.M. Review of a…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-11-26 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete the required Minimum Data Set (MDS) tracking record for one Resident (#84) out of a total sample of 22 records. Specifically, the facility failed to complete the MDS entry tracking record for Resident #84 when the Resident was readmitted to the facility after a discharge to an acute care hospital, with return anticipated. Findings include: Review of The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual dated October 2024, indicated: -For a resident discharged to a hospital or other setting who comes in and out of the facility on a relatively frequent basis and reentry can be expected, the resident is discharged return anticipated unless it is known on discharge that they will not return within 30 days. This status requires an Entry tracking record each time the resident returns to the facility. -The Entry tracking record must be completed every time a resident is admitted (admission) or readmitted (reentry) into a nursing home. -The Entry tracking record…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-11-26 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were accurately coded to reflect the Residents' status for one Residents (#87) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, for Resident #87, the facility failed to ensure that the MDS assessment was accurately coded for the use of limb restraints while in his/her wheelchair and out of bed and not while in bed. Findings include: 1. Resident #87 was admitted to the facility in November 2023, with diagnoses including Hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), Hydrocephalus (abnormal enlargement of the brain cavity caused by a build-up cerebrospinal fluid) and left foot drop (difficulty lifting the front part of the foot). Review of the Resident #87's care plans, last revised 10/15/24, indicated: -The Resident uses a custom wheelchair with bilateral leg straps as a positioning device and enabler for them to get out of bed and participate in the long-term care community on a regular…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$8,512 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,512 — penalty dated 2024-09-03
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASTRO, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 08/01/2019 |
| RASO, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 08/01/2019 |
| SOLIMINE, PAUL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 08/01/2019 |
| COOPER, STEPHEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/01/2019 |
| LANDMARK | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2019 |
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.
This home reported $993K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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
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
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.
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 225179. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-05, 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.