Adviniacare At Northbridge
85 Beaumont Drive, Northbridge, MA 01534 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 154 certified beds · (508) 234-9771 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.4% | 16.4% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 45.7% | 15.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 9.8% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.4% | 15.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.4% | 19.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.9% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.3% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.4% | 21.4% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.3% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 46.6% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.1% | 11.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.90 | 1.88 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.93 | 1.50 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from 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: 31.6% 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 38 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 56.8%CMS range 47.8–65.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.8–15.0 | 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 | 31.6% | 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 | 28.9% | 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 | 31.6% | 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 | 98.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.9% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 2.9–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 154 beds and averages 117.0 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 37 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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 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.
33 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-08 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#3) out of a total sample of 24 residents, with impaired vision received the proper assistive devices to maintain their vision. Specifically, for Resident #3, the facility failed to ensure that the appropriate corrective lenses were available for the Resident's use when his/her prescription eyeglasses were missing, and he/she was provided with another person's eyeglasses for use. Findings include: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in March 2021 with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with other Circulatory Complications and Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type. Review of Resident #3's most recent Optometry Exam dated 10/29/24, indicated: -Diagnoses of Cataract nuclear, Dry eye, Glaucoma suspect (narrow angle), Hyperopic astigmatism, and presbyopia. -Glasses required, encourage full-time use for distance and reading. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-08 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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 foot care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#107) out of a total sample of 24 residents.Specifically, for Resident #107, the facility failed to provide toenail care as required and schedule podiatry services as ordered to assist the Resident in maintaining good foot health and preventing podiatric complications. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled ADL-Nail Care, not dated, included the following:-The purpose of this procedure is to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed and to prevent infections.-Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming.-Proper nail care can aid in the prevention of skin problems around the nail bed.-unless otherwise permitted, do not trim the toenails of diabetic residents or residents with circulatory impairments. This nail care should be performed by a Licensed Nurse or Podiatrist.-trimmed and smooth nails to prevent 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 · Dcited before2025-12-08 · 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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free from accidental hazards for one Resident (#133) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #133, the facility failed to ensure:-that the Resident was provided adequate supervision and assistance during toileting activity to mitigate the risk of a fall.-that a fall sustained by the Resident was investigated, evaluated, and interventions were implemented to reduce fall hazards and risks, and the effectiveness of fall interventions were monitored and modified as required. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Accidents and Incidents, revised October 2022, indicated the following:-It is the policy of the facility to monitor and evaluate all occurrences of accidents or incidents or adverse events occurring on the facility's premises which is not consistent with the routine operation of the facility or care of a particular resident. These occurrences must 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 · Dcited before2025-12-08 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that complete and accurate medical records were maintained for two Residents (#11 and #2), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically,1. For Resident #11, the facility staff documented for ten months that the Resident's Foley (indwelling urinary) catheter was being changed monthly as ordered when the Foley catheter was not being changed monthly.2. For Resident #2, the facility staff documented two medications as being administered during a medication pass when one medication was not offered or administered to the Resident and the second medication was unavailable for administration to the Resident. Findings include: 1.Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in January 2025 with diagnoses including Obesity and obstructive and reflux Uropathy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/24/25, indicated the Resident #11: -was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of a possible score of 15. -had an indwelling urinary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided a dignified dining experience for one Resident (#103) out of total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff remained standing and stood over Resident #103 while assisting the Resident during a breakfast meal. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dining, last revised April 2023, indicated the following: -Meals are served to residents in various locations in accordance with resident preference and or needs: Main Dining Room, Resident's Own Room, Unit Dayroom, and other areas designated for family/visitor dining. -Sit next to residents while assisting them to eat rather than standing over them. On 7/30/24 at 8:40 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #103 reclining in bed with the head of the bed elevated. The surveyor observed Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) #3 standing over the Resident and his/her bed while assisting him/her with the breakfast meal. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 8:50 A.M., CNA #3 said that Resident #103 needs help eating most of 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 · D2024-07-30 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notices of Non-coverage (SNF ABN- notice issued to a resident when a facility determines the beneficiary no longer qualifies for Medicare Part A skilled services and the resident has not used all his/her Medicare benefit days) were issued for two Residents (#213 and #215) out of a total applicable sample of three residents, so that the Residents could decide if they wished to continue receiving skilled services that may not be paid for by Medicare, and were aware of the financial responsibility they may have to assume. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #213, issue a SNF ABN when the Resident no longer qualified for Medicare Part A skilled services and chose to remain in the facility. 2. For Resident #215, issue a SNF ABN when the Resident no longer qualified for Medicare Part A skilled services and chose to remain in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for SNF ABN dated June 2022, indicated that 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 before2024-07-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 ensure that the Resident and/or Resident Representative was provided the right to participate in the care planning process for one Resident (#8) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that: -quarterly care plan meetings (for March 2024 and June 2024) were conducted as required for Resident #8. -the Resident/Resident Representative participated in the care planning process. -the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) met quarterly in 2024 to review the plan of care as required. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, last revised 1/2023, included the following: -Each Resident of this facility shall be involved in the development and review of his/her plan of care along with her/her family member. -Interdisciplinary Team (IDT - two or more disciplines i.e. nursing, medicine, sociology, etc.) conferences shall be held for each resident at 90-day intervals and more often if needed. -Dates…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide care according to professional standards of practice for one Resident (#76) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -adequately assess Resident #76 for bruising (when a part of the body is injured and blood from the damaged capillaries [small blood vessels] leaks out and pools under the skin). -provide interventions to reduce the risk for bruising when the Resident was prescribed antiplatelet (prevents platelets from sticking together and decreasing the body's ability to form blood clots) medication and developed bruises on his/her upper extremities, increasing the Resident's risk for bleeding complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Risk and Skin Assessments, dated July 2018 and revised January 2023, indicated the following: -Implement appropriate strategies /plans to: attain/maintain intact skin, prevent complications, promptly identify or manage…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 and policy review, and interview, the facility staff failed to ensure that one Resident (#112) out of two closed records reviewed, was free from significant medication errors. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately reconcile (the formal process of obtaining a complete and accurate list of a patient's current medications) Resident #112's medication when the Resident was admitted to the facility, resulting in routine daily medication not being administered to the Resident as required and increasing the risk for adverse reactions related to the missed doses of the medications. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Medication Errors, last revised 8/2019, indicated: -a medication error is any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or resident harm -significant medication errors are those which require medical intervention and or result in possible or confirmed morbidity or mortality -type of medication errors include: .unordered dose Resident #112 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 · Dcited before2024-07-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to follow safe sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the risk of foodborne illness in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by two staff members (Nurse #2 and Unit Manager {UM} #1) on one unit ([NAME] Unit). Specifically, Nurse #2 and UM #1 failed to appropriately use a plastic scoop from a multi-use container of powdered thickening agent (a substance used to thicken liquids for individuals who have difficulty swallowing) in a sanitary manner for three occurrences pertaining to three residents during a meal tray pass on the [NAME] Nursing Unit. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene, last reviewed 2/1/22, indicated that hand hygiene should be performed after contact with medical supplies and equipment in resident areas. Review of the facility policy titled Dining, last revised 4/2023, indicated that Infection Control practices must be followed during the meal pass process. On…
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 23 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-30 · 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 Based on observation, interview, policy and record review the facility failed to ensure that Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP: infection control measures used in addition to standard precautions [infection prevention practices that apply to all residents, regardless of suspected or confirmed diagnosis or presumed infection status] for patients who may be infected with certain infectious agents) were implemented for one Resident (#36) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to follow Contact Precautions (refers to measures that are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment) for Resident #36 whose urine was infected with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL: an enzyme found in some bacteria that is resistant to many antibiotic treatments, and associated with poor outcomes) producing bacteria, resulting in risk for transmission of infection to others. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-30 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to provide a Pneumococcal (bacteria often found in the nose and throat, is transmissible to others, and can cause infection) Vaccine to one Resident (#9) out of five applicable residents, out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to provide a Pneumococcal Vaccine to Resident #9 when the Resident had previously received Pneumococcal Vaccine doses, was not up-to-date with his/her Pneumococcal Vaccine status, and consented to receive the Pneumococcal Vaccine when it was offered to him/her by the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pneumococcal Vaccination, dated 7/2019 and revised 2/2023, indicated: -All residents will be offered Pneumococcal Vaccines to aid in preventing Pneumonia/Pneumococcal infections. -The facility will offer Penumococcal Vaccination to all admitted residents, [AGE] years of age and older, unless such resident has already received vaccination, is not in need 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 · D2024-03-25 · 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 records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who had a court appointed a legal Guardian, the Facility failed to ensure they notified Resident #1's Guardian that Resident #1 refused his/her daily antipsychotic medication and meals for several days, and that Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital. Findings include: The Facility Resident Rights Policy, dated as last revised 10/2022, indicated that Federal and State laws guaranteed certain basic rights to residents which included, appointing a legal representative, to be notified of his/her medical condition and to be informed of and participate in his/her care planning and treatment. The Facility Notifications Policy, dated as revised 1/2023, indicated that except in a medical emergency, the Facility must notify the resident's designated representative when there is a significant improvement or decline in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status, a need to alter treatment significantly or a decision to transfer or discharge the resident from the Facility. Review 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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to permit Resident #1 to remain in the Facility or to ensure that, prior to discharge, Resident #1's Physician documented the danger posed by the Facility's failure to discharge Resident #1 and the Resident's needs which could not be met in the Facility, as required. Findings include: The Facility Discharge/Transfer Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that each resident will be permitted to remain in the Facility and not be transferred or discharged unless: - a) the transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the Facility; - b) the transfer or discharge is appropriate because the Resident's health had improved; - c) the safety of individuals in the Facility is endangered due to the clinical or behavioral status of the resident; - d) the health of individuals in the Facility would otherwise be endangered; - e) the resident has failed after reasonable and appropriate notice to pay for the stay at 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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled resident (Resident #1) the Facility failed to provide a properly completed written Notice of Transfer or Discharge to the resident/resident's representative at the time the Facility initiated discharge for Resident #1, in accordance with the Federal regulations and per Facility Policy. Findings include: The Facility Discharge/Transfer Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that each resident will be permitted to remain in the Facility and not be transferred or discharged unless: - a) the transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the Facility; - b) the transfer or discharge is appropriate because the Resident's health had improved; - c) the safety of individuals in the Facility is endangered due to the clinical or behavioral status of the resident; - d) the health of individuals in the Facility would otherwise be endangered; - e) the resident has failed after reasonable and appropriate notice to pay for the stay at the Facility; - f) 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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a court appointed legal Guardian who specified to Facility staff that if needed that Resident #1 be transferred to the closest hospital (which was only 10 miles away,) the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1's transfer was safe and orderly when, on 3/12/24 a physician order was obtained by nursing for Resident #1 to be transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation however, the Facility instead discharged Resident #1 to an ED approximately 60 miles away, alone via a wheelchair van with all of his/her personal belongings. Findings include: The Facility Resident Rights Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated staff members would treat residents with respect. The Policy indicated that Federal and State laws guaranteed certain basic rights to all residents, which included the right to participate in decision-making regarding their care. The Facility Care Plans Policy, dated as revised 1/2023, indicated each resident of the Facility would be involved in 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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a court appointed legal Guardian, the Facility failed to ensure the Guardian was provided with a written notice which specified the duration of the Facility Bed-hold Policy at the time of Resident #1's transfer to the hospital on 3/12/24, as required. Findings include: The Facility Bed Hold Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that it was the policy of the Facility to provide the resident, responsible party or legal representative with notice of the Facility's Bed Hold Policy at the time of transfer from the Facility to ensure continuity of care and residence post therapeutic leave or hospitalization. The Policy indicated it applied to all residents regardless of payor source and indicated that a written notice including the duration of the State bed hold policy and the reserve bed payment policy would be provided to the resident and/or representative. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated that he/she was admitted to the Facility during March 2024 and his/her…
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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to permit Resident #1 to return following an evaluation in the emergency department (ED) when on 03/12/24, the Facility considered Resident #1 discharged at the time of the transfer. Findings include: The Facility Discharge/Transfer Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that each resident will be permitted to remain in the Facility and not be transferred or discharged unless: - a) the transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the Facility; - b) the transfer or discharge is appropriate because the Resident's health had improved; - c) the safety of individuals in the Facility is endangered due to the clinical or behavioral status of the resident; - d) the health of individuals in the Facility would otherwise be endangered; - e) the resident has failed after reasonable and appropriate notice to pay for the stay at the Facility; - f) the Facility ceased to operate, or, - g) the transfer/discharge is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-25 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a court appointed legal Guardian and complex mental health needs, the Facility failed to ensure they developed an effective discharge plan that addressed his/her needs and availability of services, prior to discharge, as required. Findings include: The Facility Discharge/Transfer Process Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that that Facility interdisciplinary team and the physician would regularly review a resident's potential for discharge and/or need to transfer to an alternate setting. The Policy indicated that a physician order was required in cases on non-emergent discharge. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated that he/she was admitted to the Facility during March 2024 and his/her diagnoses included obsessive compulsive personality disorder, adult failure to thrive, delusional disorder and unspecified psychosis. The Record indicated the court appointed the Guardian for Resident #1 during April 2023. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated…
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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) for whom the Facility initiated a discharge, the Facility failed to ensure completion of a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the Resident #1's stay, course of illness/treatment or therapy, final summary of his/her status and a post-discharge plan of care developed with the participation of Resident #1 and the Guardian, as required. Findings include: The Facility Discharge/Transfer Process Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated that that Facility interdisciplinary team and the physician would regularly review a resident's potential for discharge and/or need to transfer to an alternate setting. The Policy indicated that a physician order was required to discharge a resident in non-emergent cases. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated that he/she was admitted to the Facility during March 2024 and his/her diagnoses included obsessive compulsive personality disorder, adult failure to thrive, delusional disorder and unspecified psychosis. The Record 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-25 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) whose diagnoses included severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD, OCD is a mental disorder that affects a person's brain and behavior which causes excessive thoughts that lead to repetitive behaviors and often centers on themes such as a fear of germs and commonly causes food aversion) the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received and was provided appropriate Behavioral Health services that addressed and met his/her mental health needs. Findings include: The Facility Behavioral Health Services Policy, dated as revised 10/2022, indicated the Facility would provide and residents would receive behavioral health services as needed to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care. The Facility Psychiatric Services Policy, dated as reviewed 1/2023, indicated that a resident who displays mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulty receives appropriate treatment and services to correct 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 · D2024-03-25 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained compliance with regulation 258 CMR 20.00 relating to Professional Standards for social workers when, between 3/06/24 and 3/12/24, the Licensed Social Work Associate (LSWA) documented four Progress Notes in Resident #1's electronic health record (EHR) using the name (and therefore credentials) of the Licensed Independent Certified Social Worker (LICSW) Findings include: The Facility Social Worker Job Description indicates the social worker assumes the lead role in the delivery of psychological, financial, religious and physical needs of the resident, family members and significant others and assures resident's needs are met in accordance with policy and procedures of the facility. The Facility Charting and Documentation Policy, dated as revised 1/2023, indicated that all services provided to residents, or any changes in the resident's medical or mental condition are documented in the resident's medical record and should include the signature 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 · Dcited before2024-03-25 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained accurate and complete medical records related to social services, when documentation for services provided by a staff member for social services in Resident #1's electronic health record (EHR) was signed under another contracted staff member's name and professional credentials. Findings include: The Facility Charting and Documentation Policy, dated as revised 1/2023, indicated that all services provided to residents, or any changes in the resident's medical or mental condition are documented in the resident's medical record. The Procedure indicated entries may be recorded only by licensed personnel and should include the signature and title of the individual documenting. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated that he/she was admitted to the Facility during March 2024 and his/her diagnoses included obsessive compulsive personality disorder, adult failure to thrive, delusional disorder and unspecified psychosis. Review of Resident #1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-26 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately execute Advanced Directives (written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment) for one Resident (#24) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to include the invoked (activated) designated Health Care Proxy (HCP- an appointed individual who could legally make medical decisions on a person's behalf when he/she became unable to do so) regarding the decision making process for Resident #24, when completing a Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST - a standardized medical order form for use by Clinician's caring for patients) form. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in November 2022 with diagnoses including Toxic Encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) and Depression. Review of the Resident's MOLST form dated 11/1/22 and signed by the Resident, indicated that he/she wished to be resuscitated in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/4/22, indicated the Resident 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 · Dcited before2023-04-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 two Residents (#47 and #28) out of a total sample of 21 residents, and/or Resident Representatives were included in the care planning process. Specifically, the facility failed to provide evidence that Resident's #47 and #28, and/or Resident Representatives had been invited to, and participated in their care plan meetings. Findings include: 1) Resident #47 was admitted to the facility in May 2021. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of a possible 15. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 11:38 A.M., Resident #47 said that he/she does not get invited to any meetings at the facility and does not meet with any facility staff except the Physician. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 10:26 A.M., Social Worker (SW) #2 said that care plan meeting documentation was found in the progress notes section of the clinical…
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 before2023-04-26 · 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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide an adequate level of assistance to prevent an accident for one Resident (#74), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #74's coffee was re-heated in a safe manner and temperature checked before providing to Resident #74 per facility policy. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Food Re-heating, dated January 2023, included the following: - To reduce the risk of resident burns related to hot beverages, liquids and food, and to provide guidance on re-heating resident food and/or liquids. - Staff members only are to re-heat resident food and/or liquids in the microwave to temperatures that are safe and palatable for residents. - Locate the dial thermometer available in the re-heating area . - The staff member is to use the dial thermometer to ensure the item or liquid reaches 165 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to prevent foodborne illness. Temperature should be checked in at least two places. - Allow food to stand for minimum of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-26 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of care regarding respiratory equipment for one Resident (#11) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -obtain a Physician's order for oxygen use, -properly store respiratory equipment and change oxygen tubing timely to prevent contamination and infection. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for Oxygen Therapy, last revised 10/2022, indicated that: -Oxygen is administered according to Physician order. -Tubing change-oxygen cannula tubing .is changed weekly and as needed. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses including Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure. Review of Resident #11's care plan with a start date of 1/20/23 indicated that Resident #11 was a new admission with weakness impacting his/her ability to care for self, status post acute COPD exacerbation (a worsening of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease symptoms). Further review of the care plan indicated an approach for Oxygen therapy as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 its staff provided a Physician ordered medication for one Resident (#20) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide Potassium Chloride (a medication used to help regulate fluid balance, muscle contraction and nerve signals) 20 milliequivalent (mEq) over five consecutively ordered dates in April 2023. Findings include: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in April 2020 with diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (low oxygen). Review of the April 2023 Physician's orders indicated an order for Potassium Chloride 10 meq -administer 20 mEq once a day every Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. On 4/25/23 at 7:50 A.M., during the medication pass, the surveyor observed Nurse #20 prepare medications for Resident #20. Nurse #2 prepared several medications for Resident #20 but omitted the Potassium Chloride. Review of the April 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR), indicated that Potassium Chloride 20 mEq dose had been documented as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 limited use of a PRN (as needed) antipsychotic (used to treat psychosis [mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality]) medication to 14 days for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure its staff limited the use of Haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) to 14 days when it was ordered by the Physician on a PRN basis and the Resident received the medication. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Psychotropic Medication, dated October 2022, included: PRN orders for antipsychotic medications will not be renewed beyond 14 days unless the healthcare practitioner has evaluated the resident for the appropriateness of that medication. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia and psychotic disorder with delusions (belief in something that is untrue) due to known psychological condition. Review of current Physician's orders, initiated 3/31/23, indicated: Haloperidol…
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 before2023-04-26 · 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 observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff adhered to sanitary standards of practice during food distribution in the main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff wore hair restraints that fully covered their hair during meal service. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Employee Sanitary Practices 2013 indicated the following: - All kitchen employees will practice standard sanitary procedures. - Wear hair restraints to prevent hair from contacting food. During an observation and interview on 4/23/23 at 7:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Dietary Staff #1 working in front of the grill in the main kitchen without a hair restraint in place. Dietary Staff #1 said that she was supposed to have a hairnet on while she worked in the kitchen but she forgot to put one on when she came to work today. During an observation and interview on 4/23/23 at 7:40 A.M., while in the facility main kitchen, the surveyor and the Food Service Director (FSD) observed Dietary Staff #2 to have long unrestrained hair…
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 before2023-04-26 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on policy review, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff administered the influenza vaccine after obtaining consent for one Resident (#1) out of five applicable sampled residents. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in January 2023. Review of the facility policy titled Influenza Vaccination, last reviewed 2/3/22, indicated that annual vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months and older. Review of the Consent for Immunizations, signed and dated 1/23/23, indicated that Resident #1 signed the consent to receive the influenza vaccine. Review of the clinical record did not indicate that Resident #1 had received, and been offered the influenza vaccine since admission to the facility. During an interview on 4/16/23 at 12:56 P.M., the Infection Preventionist said that the influenza vaccine had not been administered to Resident #1 as required.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-26 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensue a safe environment was provided for residents, visitors and staff. Specifically, the facility staff failed to properly secure Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) cylinders in the courtyard near the main dining room of the facility. During an observation and interview on 4/24/23 at 12:55 P.M., the surveyor observed three unsecured LPG cylinders on the ground near a barbecue grill, and in close proximity to patio chairs available for smokers outside in the courtyard near the entrance to the main dining room. The Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said that the courtyard area was designated as the resident smoking area of the facility and that the residents who smoked were supervised by staff in the courtyard during scheduled smoking times. The Administrator also said that in the good weather visitors can accompany residents to the courtyard. During a follow-up observation and interview on 4/24/23 at 4:05 P.M., the Administrator and the surveyor observed the same three LPG cylinders, unsecured, resting on the ground near a barbecue…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-07-30 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code two Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for one Resident (#82) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff coded Section N (Medications) to indicate Resident #82 had received Insulin (medication used to regulate blood sugar levels) injections (given by use of a needle) one time during the observations periods (period of look-back used for data collection) for each of the two (February 2024 and May 2024) MDS Assessments completed when the Resident did not receive Insulin injections. Findings include: Resident #82 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with a diagnosis of Type Two Diabetes Mellitus (DM II - condition in which the body does not produce enough insulin hormone and has trouble controlling blood sugar levels). Review of Resident #82's Physician's orders dated 2/27/24, with no stop date, indicated: -Trulicity (medication used to treat Diabetes and reduce blood sugar levels, that is 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.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ADVINIACARE — 11 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAVID A. BERKOWITZ REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/13/2021 |
| DECLARATION OF TRUST OF YOSEF MEYSTEL | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/13/2021 |
| FREDERICK S FRANKEL TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/13/2021 |
| BERKOWITZ, BENJAMIN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| CAVALLO, MELISSA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| TALAMONA, RAYMOND | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| POINTE GROUP CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| KAYE, TIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| LABELLA, CATERINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| SPECTOR, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| TABE, JULIUS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| TUROFSKY, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| WILHELM, NAFTALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
| BERKOWITZ, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/27/2026 |
| MEYSTEL, YOSEF | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/27/2026 |
| CURIS SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/13/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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 225248. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-08, 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.