Hannah B G Shaw Home
299 Wareham Street, Middleboro, MA 02346 · Non profit - Corporation · 107 certified beds · (508) 947-1184 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% 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 a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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.
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 | 23.6% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.2% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 15.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 8.4% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.9% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.5% | 19.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.1% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.8% | 21.4% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.4% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.54 | 1.88 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.04 | 1.50 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
68.5% 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 440 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 83.0% 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 206 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 48% 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 | 68.5%CMS range 65.6–72.4 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 7.1–11.9 | 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 | 83.0% | 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 | 83.0% | 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 | 83.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.4% | 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 | 1.7% | 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 | 4.3%CMS range 2.4–7.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.72 | 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 107 beds and averages 64.9 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 42 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 5.42 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 5.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.47 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.86 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to handle ready-to-eat food (food which does not require cooking or further preparation prior to consumption) to prevent cross contamination. Findings include:Review of the 2022 Food Code by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicated, but was not limited to:3-302 Preventing food and ingredient contamination; (A) FOOD shall be protected from cross contamination by: (3) Cleaning equipment and utensils as specified under 4-602.11(A) and sanitizing as specified under S 4-703.11; 4-602.11 Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils; (A) Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be cleaned: (3) Between uses with raw fruits and vegetables and with TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD; (5) At any time during the operation when contamination may…
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 · D2025-09-12 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed for one Resident (#2), out of a total sample of 15 residents, to ensure the Resident was free from physical restraints. Specifically, Resident #2's wheelchair was replaced with a Broda positioning wheelchair which no longer allowed the Resident to self-propel about the unit.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Use of Restraints, revised April 2017, indicated, but was not limited to, the following:-Restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s) and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully.-Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom(s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls.-When the use of restraints is indicated, the least restrictive alternative will be used for the least amount of time necessary, and the ongoing re-evaluation for the need of restraints will be documented.-Practices that inappropriately utilize equipment to prevent resident mobility are considered restraints…
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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, for one Resident (#2), out of a total sample of 15 residents, the facility failed to develop a plan of care accounting for the Resident's experiences and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses which included anxiety, depression, Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/18/25, indicated Resident #2 was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and had a diagnosis of PTSD. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated the Resident exhibited physical behavioral symptoms, verbal behavioral symptom, other behavioral symptoms, rejection of care, and wandering.Review of the Social Service admission Assessment, dated 7/5/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:-Resident #2 was in the process of divorcing his/her spouse-Resident #2 had some difficulty adjusting in his/her new environment…
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 before2025-09-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one Resident (#26) from a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment including oxygen tubing and bilevel positive airway pressure (bipap-medical device used to treat breathing disorders) equipment was properly maintained and stored in a clean and sanitary manner to decrease the risk of potential contamination and infection.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Equipment Changing, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following:- All respiratory therapy equipment must be changed in order to prevent nosocomial infections (infections acquired in healthcare settings).-The equipment should be marked with the date that it was changed.-All equipment should be changed on a weekly basis as well as needed (PRN) if it becomes soiled or falls on the ground. This equipment includes but is not limited to: -air entrainment masks…
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 · Fcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain a water management program to prevent the growth of Legionella (bacteria that can cause legionellosis (illness caused by Legionella) including a pneumonia-type illness called Legionnaires' disease and a mild flu-like illness called Pontiac fever) and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Legionella Water Management Program, dated as revised September 2022, indicated but was not limited to: -As part of the infection prevention and control program, our facility has a water management program, which is overseen by the water management team -The purposes of the water management program are to identify areas in the water system where Legionella bacteria can grow and spread, and to reduce the risk of Legionnaire's disease -The water management program includes…
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 · E2024-09-12 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided a meaningful and engaging activity program for residents residing on one Unit (Memory Care), out of six units in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented facility sponsored group activities for all residents on the Memory Care unit designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Findings include: Review of the facility's policies titled Activity Programs, last revised June 2018, Therapeutic Programs and Activities for the Dementia Special Care Unit (DSCU), undated, and Individual Activities and Room Visit Program, last revised June 2018, indicated, but was not limited to: -The activities program is ongoing and includes facility-organized group activities, independent individual activities and assisted individual activities. -Meaningful Activities: Design activities that engage residents mentally, physically, and emotionally,…
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 · E2024-09-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided residents an environment free from accident hazards on one unit (Memory Care Unit) of six units in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a three-tiered cart with hazardous items stored on it was not easily accessible to wandering residents on a Dementia Special Care Unit. Findings include: On 9/9/24 from 9:20 A.M. to 10:27 A.M. on the Dementia Special Care Unit, the surveyor observed two residents ambulate independently on the short hallway on the unit. On 9/9/24 at 10:27 A.M., on a short hallway on the unit, the surveyor observed a wheeled three-tiered cart with supplies on it. The top tier had stacks of folded towels on it covered with a folded bed sheet. The middle tier had incontinence briefs and slipper socks, and the bottom tier had a clear plastic bin that contained the following items: -8 (4 ounce) bottles of Medline Remedy Essentials Moisture Body Lotion -4 (1.5 ounce) bottles of FreshScent Roll-on Antiperspirant Deodorant -2 (4 ounce) bottles of FreshMoment Mouthwash -1 (8…
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 · E2024-09-12 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing levels were maintained to safely and adequately meet each resident's needs on all shifts every day on one (Memory Care) of three units in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment, dated reviewed 7/16/24, indicated the Facility was licensed for 67 beds and there were 12 beds on the Memory Care unit. -The average daily census of the Memory Care unit is 12. Further review indicated that the number of Certified Nurse's Aides (CNA) required to care for residents in the facility is: -2:10 (two staff to care for 10 residents) ratio Days (total licensed or certified) -2:10 ratio Evenings (total licensed or certified) -1.5:10 ratio Nights (total licensed or certified) -2:15 ratio Nights (short term rehab) (total licensed or certified) Review of the CNA daily assignment sheets and daily staffing schedules indicated that on 9/9/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, and 9/12/24 one CNA was assigned to the Memory…
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 · E2024-09-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed for three Residents (#57, #270, and #6), of 17 sampled residents, to ensure safe storage of medications and biologicals according to current standards of practice. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications, last revised February 2021, indicated but not limited to: -Self-administrated medications are stored in a safe and secure place not accessible by other residents. A. On 9/9/24 at 8:54 A.M., 10:57 A.M., and 1:36 P.M., the surveyor observed an inhaler containing Albuterol Inhalation Aerosol Solution (a bronchodilator used to relax airway muscles) on Resident #57's bedside table. Review of Resident #57's September 2024 Physician's Orders indicated but was not limited to the following: - May self-administer (dated 6/9/24) During an interview on 9/11/24 at 4:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident…
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 · Ecited before2024-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure food was properly stored, labeled, and dated in the main kitchen; and 2. Ensure food was properly stored, labeled, and dated in five of five kitchenettes. Findings include: Review of the 2022 Food Code by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicated, but was not limited to: - 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A)Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a reduced oxygen packaging method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on 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 · D2024-09-12 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor 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 interviews and review of grievance documentation, the facility failed to formulate written grievances, follow up, and provide resolution for two Resident's Representatives who voiced grievances. Specifically, 1. Resident #48's Representative voiced concerns to the Administrator regarding resident safety due to low staffing on the Memory Care Unit and the frequent non-functioning of a doorbell outside the unit that alerts staff to unlock the door when someone wishes to gain access to the unit to see their loved one; and 2. Resident #45's Representative voiced concerns to the Administrator regarding resident safety due to low staffing on the Memory Care Unit. Findings include: Review of the facility's policies titled Grievances/Complaints, Filing and Grievances/Complaints, Recording and Investigating, last revised April 2017, indicated but was not limited to: -Any resident, family member, or appointed resident representative may file a grievance or complaint concerning care, treatment, behavior of other residents, staff members, theft of property, or any other concerns…
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 · D2024-09-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial, and functional needs for one Resident (#43), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to address the Resident's behavior of eating non-food items. Findings include: Review of the facility's policies titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered and Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, last revised March 2022, indicated but was not limited to: -The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. -The IDT includes, but is not limited to the resident's attending physician. -The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement interventions timely after significant weight loss was identified for one Resident (#20), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -assess and evaluate the Resident's nutritional status, and -consider interventions to curb further weight loss, resulting in additional weight loss over a period of two weeks. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Weighing and Measuring the Resident, dated as last revised March 2011, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Report significant weight loss to the nurse supervisor. -The threshold for significant unplanned and undesired weight loss/gain will be based on the following criteria (where percentage of body weight loss = [usual weight - actual weight] / [usual weight] x 100): a. 1 month - 5% weight loss is significant; greater than 5% is severe. b. 3 months - 7.5% weight loss is significant; greater than 7.5% is severe. c. 6 months - 10% weight loss is significant; greater than 10% is…
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 · D2024-09-12 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one Resident (#20), out of 17 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure the Resident was seen by the physician at least every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter, with alternate visits by a nurse practitioner as indicated. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #20 was seen by a physician within the first 90 days of admission. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Physician Visits, last revised April 2013, indicated but was not limited to: - The Attending Physician will visit residents in a timely fashion, consistent with the applicable state and federal requirements, and dependent on the individual's medical stability, recent and previous medical history, and the presence of medical conditions or problems that cannot be handled readily by phone. - The Attending Physician must visit his/her patients at least once every thirty (30) days for the first ninety (90) days following the resident's admission, and then at least every sixty (60) days…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DONNELLY, KRISTINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/08/2013 |
| CALLAN, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/08/2013 |
| WYLIE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/08/2013 |
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. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $40K 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 225547. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-12, 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.