Skilled Nursing Facility At North Hill (the)
865 Central Avenue, Needham, MA 02492 · Non profit - Corporation · 72 certified beds · (781) 444-9910 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $16,153 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-15)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 | 18.9% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 4.2% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.4% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.2% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.5% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.0% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.0% | 21.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.0% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 11.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.97 | 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.
63.0% 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 270 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.8% 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 120 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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 | 63.0%CMS range 58.6–67.8 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 7.5–13.5 | 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 | 70.8% | 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 | 60.0% | 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 | 63.3% | 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 | 81.9% | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 5.7%CMS range 2.8–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 72 beds and averages 62.0 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 10 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.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 6.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.06 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.49 to 1.33 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%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was newly admitted to the Facility, was confused, was noted to wander without regard for his/her own safety, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with quality care and services that meet professional standards of practice. When although he/she was assessed by two different nurses upon admission as triggering for placement of a WanderGuard bracelet for safety, a device was not placed on him/her, and despite his/her continual wandering day and night, nursing did not reassess or re-evaluate their decision regarding placement of a WanderGuard. On [DATE], unbeknownst to staff, Resident #1 wandered off his/her unit, took the elevator to the Lobby and exited out the front door of the Facility, undetected by anyone. While outside, Resident #1 fell landed face down, hitting his/her head on the ground. Resident #1 was diagnosed with significant intracranial hemorrhaging (bleeding in the brain) and died eight 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who required the assistance of one staff member for ambulation, exhibited increased wandering and exit seeking with the need for frequent redirection by staff for safety, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff assistance/supervision to prevent him/her from eloping and sustaining serious injuries. On [DATE], at approximately 6:00 P.M., unbeknownst to staff, Resident #1 wandered off his/her unit, took the elevator to the main lobby, and although there was a Receptionist assigned to and seated in the Lobby, who was responsible for unlocking the main entrance door to let visitors and staff in/out, Resident #1 was able to exit through the main Lobby door, undetected and left the Facility. Resident #1 was ambulating outside alone for several minutes before being seen by staff, however before he/she could be safely redirected back into the Facility, Resident #1 fell forward landing…
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 · E2025-07-18 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#10), out of a total sample of 18 residents, was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (PRN) dose of Seroquel (antipsychotic) was limited to no more than14 days as required. Findings include:Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 and has diagnoses including visual hallucinations.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/13/25, indicated Resident #10 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15, and received antipsychotic medication on a PRN basis only.Review of the medical record indicated but was not limited to the following physician's orders:-Seroquel 25 milligrams (mg) give 2 half tabs for a total dose of 25 mg by mouth twice a day as needed x 30 days and evaluate for hallucinations (7/12/24, stop date: 8/11/24)-Seroquel 25 mg twice a day as needed x 30 days and evaluate for hallucinations/restlessness (9/6/24, stop 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 · Dcited before2025-07-18 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial, and functional needs of one Resident (#12), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to address the use of psychotropic medication that identified target behaviors and individualized, measurable non-pharmacological interventions and measurable goals of treatment. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Care Planning, last revised April 2014, indicated but was not limited to:-Upon entrance into the Health Center, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator and Admitting Nurses begin the assessment process utilizing facility identified, industry standard assessment tools.-The comprehensive care plan is utilized in collaboration with each other to ensure that information related to the care of the individual resident is communicated to all team members.Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with diagnoses including…
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 · D2025-07-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for one Resident (#9), of a total sample of 18 residents, that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled accurately and in accordance with the physician's order. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications, revised in April 2019, included but was not limited to the following:2. The director of nursing services supervises and directs all personnel who administer medications and/or have related functions. 4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame.10. The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. On 7/17/25 at 9:50 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 enter Resident #9's room to administer their medications. Nurse #4 verified the Resident's medication orders in the electronic Medication Administration 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-11 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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, document review, and interview, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to ensure residents who were eligibility to receive the recommended pneumococcal vaccine (PCV-20), were offered the vaccination and they or their legal representatives were educated on the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccine in a timely manner for three Residents (#52, #59, and #41), out of a total sample size of five residents reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document titled Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults, dated March 2023, indicated the following: Make sure your patients are up to date with pneumococcal vaccination. Adults >= [AGE] years old, Complete Pneumococcal Vaccine Schedules: -PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine) only at any age - give PCV20 (pneumococcal 20-valent conjugate) or PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine) >= 1 year later -PPSV23 only at any age - give PCV20 or PCV15…
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 before2024-07-11 · 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered plan of care which included care and management for one Resident (#59) who had been determined to exhibit a behavior of wandering and was determined by the staff to be a risk of elopement (an incident when a resident leaves the premises or a safe area without authorization or the necessary supervision to do so safely), out of a total sample of 15 residents. Findings include: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses including: Dementia, chronic gastritis (swelling and inflammation of the stomach lining), and lower back pain. During an initial tour Resident #59 was observed in his/her room with a wanderguard device on their right ankle. Review of the medical record indicated, but was not limited to the following: - The Healthcare proxy was activated on 5/23/24 for a 3 month period for cognitive deficits and then to be re-evaluated at that time - Nursing admission assessment indicated the Resident was a risk for wandering but no wanderguard was put in place,…
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 · D2024-07-11 · 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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure their staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with the requirements to prevent unnecessary exposure and the potential spread of COVID-19 infections while providing care and attending to the needs of a COVID-19 positive resident. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance titled: Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, Updated: March 18, 2024 indicated but was not limited to the following: Personal Protective Equipment: Healthcare providers who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use an approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face). Review of the facility policy titled: Transmission based precautions, last reviewed: 5/2024, indicated but…
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 · D2023-05-18 · 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 record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement and follow their abuse policy related to the need to immediately report an allegation of potential abuse to the Administrator or the Director of Nursing to protect other residents from potential abuse for one Resident (#4), out of a total of 26 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse Policy and Procedure, with a revision date of January 2023, indicated the following: When abuse, mistreatment, financial exploitation/misappropriation of resident property or neglect of a resident is observed, reported, or suspected by any team member; immediate action is required. -the team member will notify the immediate nursing supervisor. -the supervisor will immediately notify the Administrator and the Director of Nursing Services. -interviews will be conducted. If a team member is involved or implicated, his/her knowledge or version of the incident is to be documented. -the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services or designee, will send an initial report to the appropriate…
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 · D2023-05-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the state agency in a timely manner for one Resident (#4), out of a total of 26 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse Policy and Procedure, with revision date of January 2023, indicated the following: When abuse, mistreatment, financial exploitation/misappropriation of resident property or neglect of a resident is observed, reported, or suspected by any team member; immediate action is required. -the team member will notify the immediate nursing supervisor. -the supervisor will immediately notify the administrator and the Director of Nursing Services. -interviews will be conducted. If a team member is involved or implicated, his/her knowledge or version of the incident is to be documented. -the Administrator, Director of nursing Services or designee, will send an initial report to the appropriate regulatory agency to report any alleged or suspected abuse, mistreatment or neglect within two (2) hours of obtaining knowledge of an incident or…
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 · D2023-05-18 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive (Annual) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in a timely manner for one Resident (#14) and failed to complete discharge MDS assessments in a timely manner for two Residents (#60 and #46), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Findings include: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0 indicated the following: -The Annual and Quarterly MDS must be completed no later than 14 days from the assessment reference date (ARD). -A discharge MDS must be completed no later than 14 days 1.) For Resident #14, review of the annual MDS indicated an annual assessment with an ARD of 3/31/23. Further review indicated a completion date of 5/17/23, which was completed 48 days after the ARD date. 2.) For Resident #60, review of the discharge MDS indicated a discharge assessment with an ARD of 1/23/23. Further review indicated a completion date of 5/17/23, which was completed 115 days after the ARD date. 3.) For Resident #46, review of the discharge MDS indicated a discharge assessment with an ARD…
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
$16,153 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $16,153 — penalty dated 2025-01-15
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BARTH, SUZANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2022 |
| CORSINI, RUSSELL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2016 |
| CREED, SARAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2015 |
| DAVIS, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2016 |
| DOWNEY, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/28/2022 |
| FISCHER, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| GOFF, STEWART | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/12/2025 |
| GRIMES, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| HANDEL, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| HOFFMANN, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2017 |
| MAHONEY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| MELLACE, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2015 |
| PINGITORE, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| REICH WEIL, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| VASCONCELLES, MARTINA ANNE OECHSLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2016 |
| BERE, KARALYN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/10/2024 |
| FRIAS, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2023 |
| 4M BUILDING SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/14/2025 |
| SADIA'S HEALTH AND WELLNESS CONSULTING, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/29/2025 |
| BENOIT, PAUL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/24/2001 |
| BERMUDEZ, EMILY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/06/2023 |
| MERCHANT, ASIF | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| A.V. POWELL & ASSOCIATES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/15/1999 |
| AQUEDUCT TECHNOLOGIES, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/14/2025 |
| BABSON COLLEGE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/14/1978 |
| BAKER TILLY US LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/16/2024 |
| CLAY & ASSOCIATES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| FOCUS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2023 |
| HEALTH CARE CONTINUUM SPECIALISTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| JENSEN HUGHES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/25/2012 |
| PRIME BUCHHOLZ LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2004 |
| COSTA, NATALIE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/15/1997 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 58 rows in the source record cover these 33 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.
12 organizational owners 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 $6.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 225281. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-18, 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.