No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Palmer Healthcare Center

250 Shearer Street, Palmer, MA 01069 · For profit - Corporation · 61 certified beds · (413) 289-9887 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (413) 289-9887 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0607) — cited Dec 2025
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • 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
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
40 Wright St · (413) 370-7886 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1180 Thorndike St # RT.32 · (413) 283-4827 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Big Y0.7 mi
1180 Thorndike St · (413) 283-6918 · Call to confirm hours
Park
54 Walnut St · (413) 283-2667 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
251 Shearer St · (413) 283-7560

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 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased26.7%16.4%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.0%5.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.9%0.8%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.9%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.9%15.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.4%3.4%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened23.8%15.4%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication20.7%19.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.2%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.7%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control12.0%21.2%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table27.3%21.4%17.1%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.941.881.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.561.501.80worse

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.

0.17U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.08hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot 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 staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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

0.59
RN hours/ resident / day
0.72
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.86
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.18
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.42
RN hoursweekends
55.1%
Total nursing turnover
66.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 61 beds and averages 52.5 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.33 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-06)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-26)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · tag F0551 — isolated
    Give the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's rights.
    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 interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident Representative had the right to make decisions on behalf of the Resident for one Resident (#17) out of a total sample of 15 residents.Specifically, for Resident #17, the facility failed to ensure that the court-appointed Guardian had the legal authority to elect advanced directives (written instructions, such as a medical order form that records a resident's treatment wishes in the event of a medical emergency) on behalf of the Resident when the Guardian signed Resident #17's Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. Findings include:Resident #17 was admitted to the facility in [DATE], with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, failure to thrive, and malignant neoplasm of the kidney. Review of the document titled, Decree and Order of Appointment of Guardian for an Incapacitated Person for Resident #17, dated [DATE], indicated but was not limited to 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate and reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment, for two Residents (#7 and #5), out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically,1. For Resident #7, the facility failed to complete a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9-an assessment for mood and depressive symptoms) Assessment when the Resident had documented psychological disorders.2. For Resident #5, the facility failed to accurately code that the Resident sustained falls with injury on the MDS Assessments dated 5/29/25 and 11/20/25, when the Resident had documented falls with injury within the assessment periods. Findings include: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in March 2018 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder with psychotic features, schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder, and psychosis. Review of Resident #7's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -the Resident was moderately…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-16 · tag F0557 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff to meet his/her healthcare needs, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was treated in a respectful and dignified manner, when after eliciting the attention of Activity Aide #1, Activity Aide #2 used his fingers to jiggle the loose skin under Resident #1's neck while laughing and saying, [NAME], [NAME]. Activity Aide #2 did this in the presence of other residents and staff members.Findings include:Review of the Facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 05/28/21, indicated Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility, including the right to be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity.Review of the Facility's policy titled, Dignity, dated 05/28/21, indicated the following:-Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times.-Demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff to meet his/her care needs, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy, when on 11/30/25, Activity Aide (AA) #1 witnessed a potential incident of verbal and physical abuse and did not immediately report the incident as required, therefore placing Resident #1 and other residents at risk for abuse.Findings include:Review of the Facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated as revised March 2022, indicated that all employees are responsible to immediately report any violation or alleged violations.Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 12/01/25, indicated that on 12/01/25, Activity Aide (AA) #1 reported to the Activity Director that on 11/30/25, she witnessed AA #2 making a comment mimicking a [NAME] sound while touching the loose skin under 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-02 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop 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), who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff to meet his/her care needs, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy, when 07/01/25, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 witnessed an incident of verbal abuse and did not report the incident immediately as required, therefore placing Resident #1 and other residents at risk for abuse. Findings include:Review of the Facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated as revised March 2022, indicated that all employees are responsible to immediately report any violation or alleged violations. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 07/01/25, indicated that on 07/01/25, CNA #1 reported to the Executive Director that she heard CNA #2 (agency CNA) verbally abuse Resident #1 while assisting him/her during lunch. Review of the report indicated the alleged incident had occurred at 12:50 P.M.Review of the Facility Incident Report, 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · F2024-09-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 maintain a clean and sanitary environment in the main facility kitchen to prevent contamination and the spread of foodborne illnesses. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that: 1) equipment in the facility kitchen was clean and free of dust and debris. 2) hair restraints were worn to prevent potential physical contamination of food/fluids. 3) the facility dish machine was appropriately tested for temperature and sanitation requirements by Dietary Staff when the minimum sanitation requirements were not met, putting the facility residents at risk for contamination and foodborne illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Kitchen Sanitation, dated 6/15/20, indicated the food service area is maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. The policy included the following: -All kitchen, kitchen areas and dining areas are kept clean, free from garbage and debris . -All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment are kept clean . -All equipment, food contact services and utensils are…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0557 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure respect (regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, and traditions of others) and dignity (the state or quality of being honored or respected) for one Resident (#3), out of total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, for Resident #3, the facility had video monitoring in the Resident's bedroom without consent (agreement to do something), with video images of the Resident's body visible on a monitor screen in the Unit nursing station placing Resident #3 at risk for an undignified existence. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Dignity, dated 5/28/21, indicated: -Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his/her sense of wellbeing .and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. -Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. -The facility culture supports dignity and respect .by honoring choices, preferences, values, and beliefs. This begins with admission and continues throughout the residents stay. -Individual needs and preferences .are…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs for one Resident (#207), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide Resident #207, who was identified as being at risk for falls, with access to his/her call bell at all times to allow the Resident to call for staff assistance when needed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Call Bells, dated 5/28/21 indicated the following: -Purpose: to have a communication system to allow residents to call for assistance. -Place call bell/light within reach of resident . Resident #207 was admitted to the facility in September 2024, with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease (a progressive degenerative disorder of the central nervous system characterized by tremor and impaired muscular coordination), Diabetes Mellitus (DM - disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired resulting in elevated blood glucose [sugar] levels in the blood), and urinary frequency.…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards relative to the proper setting of pressure reducing and relieving devices for two Residents (#37and #2) who were at risk of skin breakdown. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident's #37, maintain the pressure-reducing air mattress settings as ordered by the Physician. 2. For Resident #2, to ensure the Physician's order for an air mattress was implemented for the Resident who was bed bound, identified as being at increased risk for skin breakdown, and had a history of skin breakdown. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Support Surface Guideline, dated 5/28/21, indicated the following: -The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the assessment of appropriate pressure reducing and relieving devices for residents at risk of skin breakdown. -Redistributing support surfaces prevent skin breakdown, promote circulation and provide pressure relief or reduction. -Support surfaces are modifiable.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide supervision and an environment free of accident hazards for one Resident (#1), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #1 was provided with supervision, when the Resident who was determined as being at risk for elopement was observed outside of the facility in close proximity of a parking lot without staff supervision. Findings include: Review of the the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopement, dated 6/11/21, indicated: -the facility strives to promote resident safety by maintaining a process to screen all residents for risk of elopement and implement preventative strategies for those identified at risk. The policy also included the following: -If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in March 2018, with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder with psychotic…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide food that was designed to meet the individual needs of one Resident (#2) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #2 was provided with the Physician's prescribed diet consistency of mechanical soft consistency (altered diet in which foods difficult to chew are chopped, ground, shredded, cooked or altered in some way to make them easier to chew and swallow) when the Resident was offered regular consistency items not allowed on his/her diet and pureed (texture modified diet where foods have been altered so that they have a smooth, cohesive, pudding-like consistency) meal items that was not ordered or the Resident's preference. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Therapeutic Diet Orders, dated 6/15/20, indicated it was the policy of the facility to assure that residents receive and consume foods in the appropriate form .as prescribed by the Physician…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolated
    Regularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
    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 one Resident (#3) out of a total sample of 17 residents was free from accidental risk of injury or entrapment. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the scoop mattress (a mattress with raised edges on all four sides to prevent accidental rolling out of bed) being used for Resident #3 was compatible with the bed frame when there was a significant gap between the scoop mattress and foot board, placing the Resident at risk for injury or entrapment. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Bed Safety, dated 5/28/21, indicated: -Our facility shall strive to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident. -The residents sleeping environment shall be assessed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT), considering resident safety, medical conditions, comfort, freedom of movement, as well as input from the resident's family regarding sleeping habits and bed environment. -The facility shall identify additional…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-08-10 · tag F0801 — widespread
    Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
    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 the Food Service Director (FSD) held the required qualifications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure there was a full-time Registered Dietitian (RD) when the FSD: - was not a certified dietary manager. - was not a certified food service manager. - did not have a similar national certification in food service management and safety. - did not have an Associate's degree or higher in food service management or in hospitality. - did not have two or more years of experience in the position of director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting. Findings include: Review of the list of key personnel, provided by the facility, indicated a FSD was in place. During an interview on 8/10/23 at 7:41 A.M., the Regional FSD said he was covering for the facility's FSD because she was on vacation. He said the RD for the facility worked part-time. The Regional FSD provided a certificate held by the FSD. Review of the certificate indicated the FSD completed a course that included the safe handling of food.…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that it provided discharge planning services with respect for the wishes of one Resident (#11) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, -For Resident #11, the facility failed to provide referrals and education based on the activated (made active) Health Care Proxy's (HCP-the legal document you use to tell medical providers who should make decisions about your care if you're not competent to do so) expressed desire to transfer the Resident to another skilled nursing facility closer to their home. Findings include: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia (a group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life). Review of the facility policy on Discharge Plan, dated 5/8/21, indicated that residents transferring to another skilled nursing facility . will be assisted in selecting a post-acute care provider that is relevant and applicable to 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
CAVALIER, DAVIDIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2004
WELLMAN REALTY, LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/30/2016
MINTZ, JOSHUAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
ASCENTRIA CONSULTING SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2025
CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
TWOMAGNETS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/17/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.

4 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.

$6.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-9.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$623K
Related-party expense9% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 66%Medicare 1%Other / private 33%

This home reported $623K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$335per resident / day
operating cost
$10,189per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$306per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Massachusetts
$14,448/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,817/mo
Nursing home (private)
$9,600/mo
Assisted living

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 225763. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-06, 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.

What to do next