Liberty Commons
390 Orleans Road, North Chatham, MA 02650 · For profit - Corporation · 132 certified beds · (508) 945-4611 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 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 and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 4 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 held steady at 5 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 | 25.1% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.8% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 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 | 3.8% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.4% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.3% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.9% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.1% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 70.5% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 11.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.89 | 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.
65.5% 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 793 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.8% 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 400 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 0.63 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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 | 65.5%CMS range 61.5–68.3 | 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 7.5–11.6 | 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 | 66.8% | 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 | 60.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 69.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.7% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 5.2–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 132 beds and averages 126.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.96 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.00 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.88 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-09 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor 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 observation, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were fully aware of the grievance process. Specifically, for 11 of 11 residents attending the resident group meeting during the survey, the facility failed to ensure their grievance policy included the right to file grievances anonymously and failed to ensure residents were aware of and had access to grievance forms, and were aware they could formulate grievances anonymously, should they choose not to alert a staff member of their concern(s).Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Grievances & Resolution of Other Issues, undated, failed to indicate residents and/or their representatives had the right to file grievances anonymously.On 1/7/26 at 9:58 A.M., the surveyor toured all three units in the facility. A document titled Grievances was posted on a bulletin board on each unit. The document indicated, but was not limited to:-You have a right to file a grievance in writing or orally and may do so anonymously.The posting failed to indicate availability and location of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-09 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Resident Council Minutes, a resident group meeting, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure grievances brought forward from the Resident Council were addressed and promptly resolved to ensure the residents felt their concerns were acted upon timely and included the facility response to the group.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Council, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following:-The purpose of the Resident Council is to provide a forum for: a. Residents to have input in the operation of the facility; b. Discussion of concerns; c. Consensus building and communication between residents and facility staff; and d. Staff to disseminate information and gather feedback from interested residents.Review of the facility's Grievance & Resolution of Other Issues policy, undated, included but was not limited to:-It is the policy of the organization to afford all persons served with known mechanisms by which requests for review and resolution of issues can be raised without discrimination or reprisal, 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 · E2026-01-09 · 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 review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications to promote or maintain the residents' highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#84), out of a total sample of 26 residents, that as needed (PRN) use of Ativan (treats anxiety) was limited to 14 days and the prescriber documented an evaluation of the Resident's current condition and the appropriateness for continued use prior to extending its duration.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 2001, indicated the following:-Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on a PRN basis unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record.-PRN orders for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days.-For psychotropic medications that are not antipsychotics: If the prescriber or attending physician believes it is appropriate to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-09 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for three Residents (#109, #84, #138), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:1. For Resident #109, to complete weekly skin assessments as ordered by the physician;2. For Resident #84, to implement a physician's order for head-of-bed elevation positioning; and 3. For Resident #138, to obtain a physician's order for an Registered Nurse (RN) pronouncement of death.Findings include:Review of [NAME], Manual of Nursing Practice 11th edition, dated 2019, indicated the following:-The professional nurse's scope of practice is defined and outlined by the State Board of Nursing that governs practice. Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated:-Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide residents with adequate supervision and effective interventions to prevent avoidable accidents for four Residents (#20, #24, #84, and #72), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:1. For Resident #20, to implement the Resident's seat/chair alarm as indicated in the Resident's care plan;2. For Resident #24, to implement the Resident's personal alarm as indicated in the Resident's care plan; 3. For Resident #84, to develop and consistently implement effective interventions to prevent four unwitnessed falls; and 4. For Resident #72, to implement the Resident's bed/chair alarm and fall mats as indicated in the Resident's care plan.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Falls and Fall Risk, undated, indicated, but was not limited to, the following:-It is the policy of the organization to ensure the risk of harm to residents caused by falls is minimized.-Residents who do fall will be…
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 · E2026-01-09 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to monitor the nutritional status of one Resident (#1) with an unplanned significant weight loss, out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to identify and address a 5.27% significant weight loss in one month for Resident #1. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Weight and Measuring the Resident, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following:- Report significant weight loss/weight gain to the nurse supervisor. Ensure physician and health care proxy notified.- 1 month - 5% weight loss is significant: greater than 5% is severe.- When recommended by the nurse or dietitian, weight monitoring can be done more frequently & recorded in the electronic record. The dietitian will review the results, making recommendations as necessary.- The dietitian will also review the unit Weight Record (weekly and/or monthly) to follow individual weight trends over time. Negative trends will be assessed and addressed by the dietitian whether the definition of Significant Weight Change 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 · Ecited before2026-01-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Ensure medication carts were locked when not in direct supervision of the licensed nurse; and2. Ensure topical treatments were securely stored and not left at the bedside on one of three units in the facility.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, last revised 2024, indicated but was not limited to:-Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturers' recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications.-Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access. 1. On 1/8/26 at 8:30 A.M., 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 · D2026-01-09 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition in order to reevaluate the potential need to alter the treatment plan for one Resident (#1), out of 26 residents sampled. Specifically, the facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician regarding a 5.27% significant weight loss over one month. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Change in Resident's Condition or Status, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following:- The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician or On-Call Physician when there has been: (d) a significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition.- A significant change in condition is a decline or improvement in the resident's status that: (a) will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions (is not self-limiting); (b) impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; (c) requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision to the care…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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 observations, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one Resident (#12), of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #12's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP - used to treat sleep apnea) mask and tubing was maintained in a sanitary manner. Findings include: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in August 2025 with diagnoses including but not limited to dementia. Review of Resident #12's Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following:- 8/12/25: CPAP applied at night, fill water chamber with distilled water to fill line prior to use; store parts and tubing in plastic beg (sic - bag) when not in use; one time a day. On the following dates/times, the surveyor observed Resident #12's CPAP mask and tubing left on his/her bedside nightstand resting on a telephone and left open to air:- 1/6/26 at 9:26 A.M. and 12:51 P.M.,- 1/7/26 at 8:41 A.M. and 12:16 P.M., and-…
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 before2024-09-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure all medications used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure medication carts were locked when not in direct supervision of the licensed nurse; and 2. Ensure staff properly labeled all medications stored in three of four medication carts reviewed once opened. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access. -Certain medications or package types such as IV solutions, multiple dose injectable vials, ophthalmics, nitroglycerin tablets, blood sugar testing solutions and strips, once opened, require an expiration date shorter than the manufacturer's expiration date to ensure medication purity and potency. -When 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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-09-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections when the facility was currently experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 infection. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff did not report to work or provide care to residents while acutely ill without testing to ensure they were not COVID-19 positive while in the facility; 2. Test Residents in accordance with current COVID-19 testing guidelines following a known exposure for 9 of 17 residents effected; and 3. Ensure staff properly handled medications to reduce the potential transmission of pathogens for Resident #19 during medication administration. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled COVID-19 Test access protocol: Healthcare personnel (HCP), dated 3/14/24, indicated but was not…
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 before2024-09-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for one Resident (#19), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff administered medications per physician's orders and manufacturer's recommendations. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated February 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Five (5) Rights - right resident, right drug, right route, and right time, are applied for each medication being administered. A triple check of these five rights is recommended at three steps in the process of preparation of a medication for administration; 1) when the medication is selected, 2) when the dose is removed from the container, and finally 3) just after the dose is prepared and the medication put away. a. Check #1: Select the Medication - label, container and contents are checked for integrity, and compared against the Medication Administration Record (MAR) by reviewing…
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 before2024-09-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment that was free from accidents and hazards for one Resident (#19), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure unauthorized medications were not left at the bedside for the Resident, who was legally blind, to self-administer without a proper assessment of the Resident's mental and physical capabilities to reduce the risk of any potential adverse consequences. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Drugs, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following: -As part of their overall evaluation, the nurse will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities, to determine whether a resident is capable of self-administering medications. -In addition to general evaluation of decision-making capacity, the staff and practitioner will perform a more specific skill assessment, including but not limited to the resident's: 1. Ability to read and understand medication labels; 2. Comprehension of the purpose and…
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 · D2024-09-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary respiratory care and services for one Resident (#12), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure oxygen (O2) equipment was maintained to ensure sanitary conditions to help decrease the risk of potential contamination and infection. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following: -store tubing in a plastic bag Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 and had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease stage 3 and chronic diastolic heart failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/3/24, indicated Resident #12 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, did not use oxygen, and had no current respiratory infection or pulmonary disease. The MDS also indicated the Resident had severely impaired vision. Review of current Physician's Orders indicated the following: -May have…
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 before2023-06-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain and consistently implement an infection prevention and control program for the surveillance of potential illnesses based on the facility identified McGeer criteria. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Programs, dated as revised October 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following: - Surveillance tools are used for recognizing the occurrence of infections, recording their number and frequency, detecting outbreaks and epidemics, monitoring adherence to the infection prevention and control practices and detecting unusual pathogens with infectious implications. - Data gathered during surveillance is used to oversee infections and spot trends. Review of the March 2023 Facility Identified Surveillance Line Listing, indicated 30 different potential illness entries. Only 5 of the 30 separate entries included symptoms which was the facility's method to determine infection, and 13 separate entries were counted as infections in the facility.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-28 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain professional standards for administering pain medication as ordered by a physician for one Resident (#265), out of a total sample of 23 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Physician Medication Orders, dated as reviewed 2021, indicated but was not limited to the following: - No drugs shall be administered except upon the order of a person lawfully authorized to prescribe. - Orders for medications must include: name and strength of drug; dosage and frequency of administration; route of administration; reason or problem for which given. Resident #265 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses which included left femur (upper leg) fracture, osteoporosis, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the current Physician's Orders for Resident #265 included but was not limited to the following: - 6/21/23: Oxycodone HCL (narcotic pain medication) 5 milligram (mg) tablet. Give 0.5 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for pain 7-10; total dose 2.5 mg.…
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOGDANOVICH, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 02/01/1987 |
| JONES, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| LAHAIE, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/07/2021 |
| LAVALLEE, JASON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2022 |
| WEBER, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/06/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $1.5M 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 225330. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-09, 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.