Webster Park Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center
56 Webster Street, Rockland, MA 02370 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 110 certified beds · (781) 571-0555 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no 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
- nursing-staff turnover (76%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.2% | 16.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 54.6% | 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 | 1.8% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.3% | 15.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.7% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.6% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.1% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.0% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.0% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 70.2% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.7% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.5% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.89 | 1.50 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
60.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 415 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.4% 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 247 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 0.78 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 40% 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 | 60.4%CMS range 54.1–64.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.0%CMS range 11.9–16.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 66.4% | 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 | 68.8% | 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 | 64.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.8% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 5.8–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 110 beds and averages 41.6 residents a day — about 38% occupied, or roughly 68 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.12 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.49 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.53 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 76% is well above 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-06 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor range of motion (ROM) of left knee flexion contracture and implement the care plan to maintain ROM to reduce the risk of worsening the contracture for one Resident (#13), out of a sample of 13 residents. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, revised July 2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:-Residents with limited range of motion will receive treatment services to increase and/or prevent a further decrease in range of motion.-Residents with limited mobility will receive appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility unless reduction in mobility is unavoidable.-As part of the resident's comprehensive assessment, the nurse will identify the resident's:Current range of motion of his or her joints;-Opportunities for improvement; and-Previous treatment and services for mobility.-The care plan will be developed by the interdisciplinary team based on the comprehensive assessment and will be revised 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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0715 — isolatedEnsure the physician properly assigns and delegates tasks to a qualified dietitian (or other qualified nutrition professional); or to a qualified therapist.
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 the physician signed therapeutic diet orders for total parenteral nutrition (TPN- a method of delivering complete nutrition intravenously to patients who cannot use their digestive system), written by a registered dietitian (RD) for one Resident, (#10), out of a total sample of 13 residents.Findings include:Review of 105 CMR 150 Standards for Long Term Care Facilities indicated the RD's role within long-term care facilities to be as follows: -150.009: Dietary Service (A) All facilities shall provide adequate dietary services to meet the daily dietary needs of residents in accordance with written dietary policies and procedures. (2) Dietary services shall be provided directly by the facility, or facilities may contract with an outside food company provided the facility and the food company comply with 105 CMR 150.000; provided the facility or the company has a qualified dietitian who serves, as required in 105 CMR 150.000; and provided the facility and the dietitian provide for continuing liaison with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-28 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#15), out of a total sample of 21 residents, that the Resident's legal guardian (a person who has been appointed by a court or otherwise has the legal authority to care for the personal and property interests of another person who is deemed incapacitated) was informed of a change in skin condition by the physician or other practitioner or professional, informed of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options, and to choose the alternative or option he/she preferred. Specifically, the facility failed to inform the legal guardian when Resident #15 developed wounds on his/her left heel and the second and third toes of the right foot, failed to inform of the risks and benefits of treatment and obtain consent for surgical debridement (surgically cleaning a wound by removing non-viable tissue with a scalpel or other surgical tools) and skin substitute grafting of wounds to the Resident's left heel and/or second and third toes of the right foot 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-28 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were fully aware of the grievance process. Specifically, for 14 of 14 residents attending the resident group meeting during the facility survey, the facility failed to ensure residents were aware they could formulate grievances anonymously, should they choose not to alert a staff member of their concern(s). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Grievance and Complaint Procedure, dated January 2022, indicated but was not limited to: -Upon admission, residents are provided with written information on how to file a grievance or complaint within the facility. Such information will also be posted on the resident bulletin board. -Grievances and complaints may be submitted orally or in writing without threat or fear of retaliation. They may also be filed anonymously. On 1/24/25 at 10:30 A.M., the surveyor held a resident group meeting with 14 residents, representing each of the facility's three units, in attendance. The residents said they don't always want to identify who…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-28 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for three Residents (#85, #15, and #23), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #85, staff implemented a taper and discontinuation of a Nicotine patch (smoking cessation treatment) recommended by the consultant pharmacist and agreed upon by the Resident's physician; 2. For Resident #15, the consultant wound physician did not perform treatments including invasive surgical procedures, cauterization, ultrasound therapy and substitute skin grafts to the Resident's wounds without obtaining informed consent to do so from the Resident's legal guardian; and 3. For Resident #23, to ensure a left upper extremity (LUE) hand carrot (device designed to position fingers away from the palm protecting the skin from moisture, pressure and other injury) was donned/doffed (put on/ taken off) as prescribed in physician's orders. Findings include: 1. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility in January 2024…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when two of five nurses observed made two errors out of 28 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.14%. Those errors impacted two Residents (#22 and #64). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications, revised April 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. -Medication errors are documented, reported, and reviewed by the QAPI committee to inform process changes and/or the need for additional staff training. -The individual administering the medication checks the label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. 1. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in July 2022 and had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, osteoarthritis, benign intracranial hypertension,…
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 · D2025-01-28 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible and within reach for one Resident (#37), out of a total of 21 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the call light switch above Resident #37's bed had a string attached to it to enable the Resident to independently call for assistance. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Answering the Call Light, dated April 2016, indicated but was not limited to: - Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident's requests and needs. - General Guidelines: 4. Be sure that the call light is plugged in at all times. 5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in January 2018 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/10/24, indicated Resident #37 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief…
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 · F2023-10-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program with a complete and accurate system of surveillance to identify any trends of actual or potential infections within the facility using their predetermined infection definition criteria. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Surveillance of Infections, dated as revised September 2017, indicated but was not limited to the following: - The purpose of surveillance of infections is to identify both individual cases and trends of epidemiologically significant organisms and healthcare-associated infections to guide appropriate interventions and prevent future infections. - Criteria for infections are based on current standard definitions of infections. - In addition to collecting data on incidents of infections the surveillance system is designated to capture certain epidemiologically important data that may influence how overall surveillance data is interpreted, for example: surveillance data gathered for residents with a recent hospital…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-31 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, policy review, grievance review, and review of Resident Council Minutes, the facility failed to ensure residents' grievances were brought forward and the grievance process was implemented, and concerns were resolved in a timely manner. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #2, to implement the grievance process for lost laundry; and 2. To address and promptly resolve several grievances regarding lost laundry brought forward during the September 2023 Resident Council Meeting. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Grievance and Compliant Procedure, dated January 2022, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Residents and their representatives have the right to file grievances, either orally or in writing, to the facility staff or to the government agencies without threat or fear of retaliation. -The administrator and staff will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances to the satisfaction of the resident and/or complainant. -Any resident, family member, or appointed resident representative may file a grievance or complaint…
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 before2023-10-31 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when 1 out of 3 nurses observed made 2 errors out of 28 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.14%. Those errors impacted one Resident (#56), out of three residents observed. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated November 2021, indicated but was not limited to: - FIVE RIGHTS-Right resident, right drug, right dose, right route, and right time, are applied for each medication being administered. - A triple check of the five rights is recommended at three steps in the process of preparation of a medication for administration: (1) when the medication is selected, (2) when the dose is removed from the container, and finally (3) just after the dose is prepared and the medication is put away. - Check #2: Prepare the dose- the dose is removed from the container and verified against the label and the medication administration record (MAR) by…
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 · D2023-10-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were secured in locked compartments with only authorized personnel having access. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, dated November 2021, indicated but was not limited to: -Medications and biologicals are stored safely and securely following manufacturers' recommendations or those of the supplier. -The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. On 10/27/23 at 8:34 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 prepare medications to administer to a resident, placing them into a medication cup. Nurse #1 put the medication cup containing the medications in the medication cart and locked the cart, and then walked away from the medication cart and entered the medication room and closed the door. Nurse #1 left the medication cart unattended and not within this eyesight, with the following medications left on top of the medication cart:…
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 · C2026-04-06 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure trash, garbage, and refuse were disposed of and properly contained within a receptacle constructed with a tight-fitting lid. Findings include:Review of the 2022 Food Code (a model for safeguarding public health and ensuring food is unadulterated and honestly presented when offered to the consumer) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicated outside receptacles must be constructed with tight-fitting lids or covers to prevent the scattering of the garbage or refuse by birds, the breeding of flies, or the entry of rodents. Proper equipment and supplies must be made available to accomplish thorough and proper cleaning of garbage storage areas and receptacles so that unsanitary conditions can be eliminated. On 4/2/26 at 1:03 P.M., the surveyor observed an enclosed area with two dumpsters. One filled with cardboard and one filled with bags of trash. The surveyor observed the dumpster filled with bags of trash to be open from the top. Between the dumpsters was a large amount of leaves with empty containers 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.
- No harm found · B2023-10-31 · tag F0844 — patternFollow rules about disclosure of ownership requirements and tell the state agency about changes in ownership and/or administrative personnel.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS- State agency reporting system), the facility failed to provide written notice to the State agency when a change in the facility's Administrator and a change in Director of Nursing (DON) occurred. Findings include: Review of HCFRS indicated the last time the State was notified of DON and Administrator changes for the facility were: -change in facility DON occurred on 12/9/19 -change in facility administrator occurred on 5/4/22 Further review of HCFRS failed to indicate the State Agency was notified when the change took place for the current Administrator and current DON as required. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 9:03 A.M., the Administrator said that he started on 4/17/23 and the DON started on 4/24/23. The Administrator said that he thought the changes were made in HCFRS. During an interview on 10/26/23 at 8:35 A.M., the Administrator and surveyor reviewed HCFRS together, the last time the Administrator information was updated for the facility was on 5/4/22 and for the DON the last updated…
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 · B2023-10-31 · tag F0848 — patternProvide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure their arbitration agreement specifically provides for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Binding Arbitration Agreements, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Agreements provide for the selection of a mutually agreed upon neutral arbitrator and venue Review of the arbitration agreement in use by the facility titled Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement Between Resident and Facility, undated, failed to identify the use or delineation of a venue for arbitration. During an interview on 10/27/23 at 1:34 P.M., the Administrator reviewed the agreement in use by the facility and said he does not see anything specific about a mutually agreed upon venue that is convenient to both parties and would assume the arbitrator would select the venue. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 1:41 P.M., the regional director of operations reviewed Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement and said he does not see…
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 MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES — 87 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 86 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 86; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEOPLES UNITED BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 12/10/2018 |
| AL-MADI, SAMI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/29/2021 |
| POSEN, MINDEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 225184. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-06, 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.