Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Northboro
238 West Main Street, Northborough, MA 01532 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 96 certified beds · (508) 393-2368 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 20.5% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 15.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.2% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.1% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.2% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.9% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 29.7% | 21.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.0% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.5% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.40 | 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 105 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.1% 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 61 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 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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 54.5–74.9 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 7.4–14.8 | 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 | 72.1% | 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 | 60.7% | 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 | 55.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 93.5% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.4% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 4.0–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 96 beds and averages 85.5 residents a day — about 89% 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.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.91 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
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 · Dcited before2025-06-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to properly follow sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the risk of foodborne illness in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that resident food was prepared and distributed appropriately to prevent the potential for cross contamination by staff in the main kitchen when: -Dietary Staff #1 was observed handling food items and food trays and walked around other areas of the main kitchen touching surfaces using the same gloves. Dietary Staff #1 was also handling dirty trays and resident food items on the food service line and did not change gloves or perform appropriate hand hygiene. -Dietary Staff #2 did not change gloves or perform appropriate hand hygiene between working on the resident food service line, moving around other areas of the kitchen and returning to the serving line. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for Glove Use in the Dining Services Department, last revised 4/1/25, indicated:…
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 · D2025-06-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in July 2020 with diagnoses including open wound of the abdominal wall and atherosclerosis of native arteries of left leg with ulceration of heel and midfoot. Review of Resident #10's Physician's order for June 2025, indicated: -Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) related to lower leg wounds. >Special Instructions: Gown/Glove Use for High Contact Care: dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens. On 6/20/25 at 8:01 A.M., the surveyor observed CNA #2 remove soiled linen from Resident #10's bed and place the linen in a bag on the floor next to the Resident's bed in his/her room. CNA #2 was observed wearing gloves but not wearing a gown. CNA #2 was further observed to exit Resident #10's room with the soiled gloves still in place, and proceed into the hallway and remove clean linen from a linen cart in the hallway. The surveyor observed CNA #2 go back into Resident #10's room with the clean linen and make the Resident's bed with 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 · D2025-06-23 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that patient care equipment was maintained in safe operating condition for one Resident (#47) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, for Resident #47, the facility failed to ensure that an air mattress ordered by the Physician was appropriately functioning as required when the air mattress was plugged into a non-functioning electrical outlet and the Resident was not receiving the pressure relieving benefit of the air mattress. Findings include: Review of the Medline Supra CXC User Manual, undated, indicated: -Troubleshooting >power is not on. Solution: check if the plug is connected to the mains, check if there is any blown fuse. >patient is bottoming out. Solution: pressure setting might be inadequate for the patient. Adjust pressure to a higher level and wait a few minutes. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 with diagnoses including Dementia and chronic kidney disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 · D2024-08-29 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure that staff implemented and followed their abuse policy, when on 7/22/24 an Activity Aide (AA) witnessed another staff member interact with and handle Resident #1 in a potentially abusive manner, however the AA did not immediately report the incident as required, and Administrative staff did not become aware of the incident until the following day (7/23/24) when a visitor, who was also present during the incident reported it to the facility. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse Prevention and Prohibition, dated as revised 04/01/2019, indicated the Facility assured an environment free of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and misappropriation of resident property. The Policy indicated that staff who witness or have knowledge of abuse, mistreatment, neglect, misappropriation of resident property or exploitation are required to report it immediately to the nursing supervisor. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in August 2023, diagnoses…
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 · E2024-05-10 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to utilize the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required. Specifically, the facility failed to have an RN working at least eight consecutive hours for four days between 10/1/23 to 12/31/23, placing all residents at risk for not having their clinical needs met either directly by the RN or indirectly by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) or Certified Nurses Aides (CNA) that the RN was responsible for overseeing with provision of resident care. Findings include: Review of the Fiscal Year Quarter One (dated 10/1/23 through 12/31/23) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ: reporting system to which nursing facilities report on staffing data) Report indicated that the facility reported No RN in the facility for eight consecutive hours on the following dates: -10/1/23 -10/29/23 -11/12/23 -12/3/23 During an interview on 5/7/24 at 8:36 A.M., the facility Administrator said the facility had no Nurse staffing waivers. During an interview on 5/9/24 at 11:12 A.M., the surveyor 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 · D2024-05-10 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Advance Directives (legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you are unable to communicate your own wishes) were accurate for two Residents (#27 and #28) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #27, ensure that the MOLST (Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form was valid and reflected the signature of Resident #27's invoked (made active by a Physician) Health Care Proxy (HCP- a legal document that allows you to appoint someone you trust to make medical decisions on your behalf if you are unable to do so). 2. For Resident #28, ensure that the MOLST form was valid and reflected the signature of the Resident's appointed/invoked HCP. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Advanced Directives and Massachusetts Health Care Proxy, last revised 2/25/24, indicated the following: -On admission determine if the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-10 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide privacy and confidentiality for one Resident (#27) out of 19 sampled residents. Specifically, for Resident #27, the facility staff failed to ensure that personal privacy of the Resident's own body was provided when he/she was observed to be naked and attempting to get dressed in their bedroom. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident's Rights, last revised 9/19/23, indicated that Federal and state law guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility including: -a dignified existence -privacy and confidentiality Resident #27 was admitted to the facility in May 2023, with diagnoses including vascular Dementia (problems with reasoning, planning, memory, judgement, and other thought processes caused by brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #27 was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status…
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 before2024-05-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that two Residents (#54 and #61), out of a total sample of 20 residents were provided with necessary assistance during dining service to decrease the risk of reduced nutritional intake. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #54, offer to provide physical assistance to set up meal trays by opening opening containers and placing meal items in an accessible manner that would enable the Resident to consume his/her meals. 2. For Resident #61, assist the Resident in setting up their meal tray for ease with dining by cutting up food items as needed and ensuring meal items were accessible. Findings include: Review of the facility's Dining Program Policy, undated, indicated the following: -It was the facility's policy to provide an enhancing resident-centered dining service that encourages nutritional intake, resident independence, social relationships, and overall well-being. -Proper assistance 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 · D2024-05-10 · 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 observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment as free of accidental hazards as possible, consistent with the needs of one Resident (#84) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance for Resident #84 during meal time, when the Resident was assessed and ordered for a pureed (food that has been ground, pressed, and/or strained to a soft, smooth consistency, like a pudding) diet texture, but was able to obtain and ate regular textured food from another Resident's (#54's) meal tray, increasing the Resident's risk for complications and illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility's Dining Program Policy, undated, indicated the following: -It was the facility's policy to provide an enhancing resident-centered dining service that encourages nutritional intake, resident independence, social relationships, and overall well-being. -Proper assistance and encouragement 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 · D2024-05-10 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate care, services, and monitoring of a gastrostomy tube (G-tube- a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medication, also referred to as a feeding tube) for one Resident (#242) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to obtain Physician's orders to check for gastric residual volume (amount of fluid remaining in the stomach after enteral [passing through the gastrointestinal (GI) tract] nutritional feeding has been given) of a G-tube to identify and prevent complications associated with enteral feeding. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Feedings, last revised 4/30/24, indicated: -to check for gastric residual. -hold the feeding and notify per Physician's orders. -Checking residuals- the nurse should check for residuals once per shift or per Physician order to minimize the potential complications with vomiting, distention and aspiration.…
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 · D2024-05-10 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pain management consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#28) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to appropriately assess Resident #28 for the presence of pain and intensity of pain on each shift. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pain Management last revised April 2017, indicated the following: -Purpose: to provide each resident who is experiencing acute or chronic pain effective assessment and management of symptoms . -The resident will be screened for the presence and intensity of pain on each shift using the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to record the results. -Resident's self-report of pain is to be used as the single most reliable indicator of the existence and intensity of pain. -Pain scale tools which are appropriate for the resident's developmental, physical, emotional, and cognitive status are used to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-10 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to perform trauma assessments at the time of admission to the facility for two Residents (#45 and #79) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #45, complete a trauma assessment to determine whether the Resident had any history of trauma (emotional response to a deeply distressing or disturbing experience), and/or determine any triggers which may cause re-traumatization. 2. For Resident #79, screen the Resident for a history of trauma since his/her admission to the facility, to recognize and respond to any signs and symptoms of trauma. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Trauma Informed Care, effective October 2022, indicated the following: -It is recognized that residents may have experienced trauma in their past that could potentially impact their care or response to care. -All residents are assessed upon admission, as part of their social service history and asked if they have experienced any trauma in their life. 1. Resident #45 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored and administered in a secure and safe manner, according to professional standards for one Resident (#47), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to adhere to safe medication administration practices when medications were left unattended in a medication cup at Resident #47's bedside. Findings include: Resident #47 was admitted to the facility in July 2023 with diagnoses including Arthrosclerosis (a buildup of plaque and fat inside arteries) of arteries in both legs, Atrial Fibrillation (quivering or irregular heartbeat), mild cognitive impairment of unknown cause, and Dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 was moderately cognitively impaired as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of a possible score of 15. Review of 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 · Ecited before2022-12-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained the minimum wash temperature necessary for the dish machine utilized for cleaning dishware for resident use in the main facility kitchen. Specifically, Dietary Aide (#1) was operating the dish machine after lunch service that was registering below 160 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for the wash cycle. Findings include: Review of the Champion (type of dish machine) Operation, Cleaning and Maintenance Manual, dated 8/1/17, indicated the following: -READY: the status bar indicates 'Ready' when the machine is full of water. WAIT FOR THE WASH TEMPERATURE to read 160 degrees F before inserting a dish rack into the machine. -slide the dish rack into the machine until the wash pump (s) start. The conveyor will catch the rack and move it through the machine. The minimum wash temperature displayed must be 160 degrees F when the rack is in the wash zone. During a walk through of the kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD) on 12/29/22 from 1:00 P.M.-1:25 P.M., the surveyor observed the following: -The dish…
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 before2022-12-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff provided the necessary grooming/hygiene services to one Resident (#40), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff did not provide services as needed of fingernail care for the Resident who was unable to care for his/her own fingernails. Findings include: Resident #40 was admitted to the facility in August 2017 with diagnoses including Dementia-severe and Alzheimer's disease. On 12/27/22 at 9:20 A.M., the surveyor observed that Resident #40's fingernails appeared very dirty with dried black debris under each nail. Review of most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/30/22, indicated that the Resident was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive physical assistance from staff for personal hygiene which included washing of hands. Review of the Resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) Functional Care Plan, edited 12/13/2022, indicated that the Resident required the assistance of one staff and was dependent on staff for bathing 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 · D2022-12-29 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#26), who required renal dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the body when the kidneys stop working properly), out of a sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate communication documentation with the dialysis facility as required. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hemodialysis, Care of the Resident Receiving, dated January 9, 2010, indicated the following: -A dialysis communication book will be provided to each resident requiring hemodialysis. -The book will contain preprinted communication tools to be completed by the nurse sending the resident to the dialysis center and from the dialysis center. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD-Kidney failure), and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the signed Physician orders for December 2022 indicated 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.
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MALLOY-SALMON, KIMBERLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| ROBINSON, JEFF | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| SALMON, ANDREW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| SALMON, DANIEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 01/01/2013 |
| SALMON, DOROTHY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 02/13/2002 |
| SALMON, JULIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| SALMON, MATTHEW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| SALMON-ROBINSON, KATE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2013 |
| MURPHY, EDWARD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/22/2013 |
| SACON, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/03/1997 |
| CONTINUING CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/25/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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. 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 225513. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-23, 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.