Sterling Village
18 Dana Hill Road, Sterling, MA 01564 · For profit - Partnership · 143 certified beds · (978) 422-5111 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 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 | 18.0% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 15.5% | 6.5% | better 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 | 4.1% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 15.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.7% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.9% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.3% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.2% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.7% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.0% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.0% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.88 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 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.
62.2% 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 349 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 76.4% 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 233 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 62.2%CMS range 57.1–67.5 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 10.6–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 76.4% | 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 | 68.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 69.1% | 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 | 96.9% | 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 | 98.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 4.5–9.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 143 beds and averages 136.6 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-22 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for indwelling urinary catheters for three Residents (#15, #157 and #114), of six applicable residents, out of a total sample of 28 residents, increasing the Residents risk for indwelling urinary catheter complications.Specifically, the facility failed to:1. for Resident #15, replace the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter with the correct sized catheter as ordered by the Physician during the scheduled monthly catheter change, and secure the urinary drainage bag away from contaminated surfaces. 2. for Resident #157, maintain/secure the urinary drainage bag away from contaminated surfaces.3. for Resident #114, replace the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter with the correct sized balloon during the Resident's Physician ordered monthly indwelling urinary catheter change, increasing the Resident's risk for indwelling urinary catheter complications. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for two Residents (#10 and #59) out of a total sample of 27 residents, and on one unit (Aspen Unit) out of three units observed.Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure:-for Resident #10, that the Resident's enteral tube feeding (nutritional supplement provided through a tube to the stomach) equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.-for Resident #59, that the Resident's enteral tube feeding equipment pump and pole, and the Resident's upper left side bed rail located next to the feeding equipment was maintained in a clean manner. Findings includeReview of the facility policy titled Maintaining a Clean Environment, dated 9/1/04, indicated:-Items that collect dust or secretions may harbor microorganisms that can colonize and infect susceptible residents or be inhaled by employees performing cleaning tasks.-In certain areas, housekeeping will not be responsible for the care of specific fixtures and furnishings. These items may be the responsibility of Nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide Activity of Daily Living (ADL - basic care tasks that an individual requires on a day-to-day basis such as grooming, eating, bathing, and dressing) care to one Resident (#127), of three applicable residents, out a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, for Resident #127, the facility failed to provide grooming services for facial hair removal when the Resident's preference was daily facial hair removal and he/she was dependent on staff for assistance, causing a decrease in the Resident's quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Residents Rights, dated 9/1/04 included but was not limited to the following: Purpose: to promote the safety, comfort and well-being of all residents in the facility: >As a nursing home/rest home resident you have the right to be treated with dignity. Review of the facility policy titled A.M. Care, dated 9/1/04 included but was not limited to: Purpose: To facilitate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide three Residents (#113, #20, and #92), out of a total sample of 25 residents, with an environment as free of accidental hazards as possible. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. provide adequate supervision and food of the required texture to ensure Resident #113's safety while eating when the Resident had a diagnosis of Oropharyngeal Phase Dysphagia (disorder or impairment in the ability to swallow), required his/her food to be pureed (soft, smooth foods that require no chewing), and required supervision and verbal cues while eating, increasing the Resident's risk for aspiration (inhaling food/drink into one's airways or lungs, and can result in Pneumonia). 2a. appropriately review Resident #20's food allergy list, when the Resident with a documented allergy for green beans, was served green beans at mealtime, increasing the Resident's risk for adverse reactions to food consumption. 2b. provide adequate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-04 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#52) out of a total sample of 25 residents was free from significant medications errors. Specifically, the facility staff failed to adhere to the Physician's orders to hold the dose of Losartan Potassium (a medication used to decrease blood pressure and decrease the incidence of Stroke in patients with Hypertension [HTN: high blood pressure. When the blood pressure measures consistently above 130/80 millimeters of mercury [mmHg]) for a Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) of less that 110 mmHg. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Pass Guideline, with a revision date of 2/12/15 indicated: >Physician's Orders: -Medications are administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending Physician. *If a dose seems excessive considering the resident's age and condition or a medication order seems to be unrelated to the resident's current diagnosis or condition, contact the Physician for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and policy review, the facility failed to develop an infection prevention and control policy and procedure (IPCP) in accordance with current accepted national standards and guidelines relative to controlling COVID-19 infection. Specifically, the facility failed to indicate what measures would be implemented to identify and control the spread of COVID-19 infection for residents and staff in the facility in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak. Findings include: Review of the CDC guidance titled Infection Control Guidelines: SARS-CoV-2, dated 5/8/23, indicated: -Asymptomatic patients with close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection should have a series of three viral tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. -Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at Day 1 (where day of exposure is Day 0), Day 3, and Day 5. -Employers should be aware that other local, . state, . requirements…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose physician's orders included the administration of a narcotic medication as needed for pain, the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record when nursing failed to transcribe into the Controlled Substance Log (a book used by nursing to keep an accurate count of all narcotics and to record administration of narcotics), a change in the directions for the use of the narcotic, and failed to document the administration of the narcotic in his/her Medication Administration Record. Findings include: Review of the Facility's policy, titled Medication Pass Guidelines, with a revision date of 02/12/2015, indicated the purpose was to assure the most complete and accurate implementation of physicians' medication orders for administration of drugs in an accurate manner. Further review of the Policy indicated the following: -Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. -Verify the medication label against the Medication…
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 · E2023-06-15 · tag F0694 — patternProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC: flexible tube inserted through a vein in one's arm and passed through to the larger veins near the heart, used to deliver medications intravenously [IV]) care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice and plans of care for two Residents (#237 and #45), out of two residents receiving IV treatments via PICC, in a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #237, obtain a baseline measurement for the external length of Resident #237's PICC from when it was placed to ensure the PICC had not migrated (moved from the heart to another area, which could have a significant impact on treatment, or cause serious harm) prior to administering antibiotic therapy to the Resident via PICC when he/she returned to the facility from the acute hospital. Facility staff also failed to accurately measure the external length of the PICC and the Resident's arm circumference, as ordered by the Physician, when…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately execute Advance Directives (written documents that tells your health care providers who should speak for you and what medical decisions should be made if you become unable to speak for yourself) for one Resident (#21) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the MOLST (Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment) decisions were made by the designated and invoked (activated) Health Care Proxy (HCP- a legal document that allows you to appoint someone you trust to make medical decisions on your behalf if you are unable to do so) for Resident #21, when the Resident was deemed as lacking the capacity for informed decision making by the facility's Physician. Review of the facility policy for Advance Directives, last revised 3/15/23, indicated that Advance Directives go into effect only after a person is declared incapable of making their own medical decisions. Findings include: Resident #21 admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the clinical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-15 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#337), out of a total sample of 26 residents, received care of a colostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening [stoma] from the large intestine through the abdomen allowing for stool to pass from the intestine to outside the body) system consistent with professional standards. Specifically, the facility staff failed to provide care and maintenance of the adhesive barrier/wafer pouching system per facility policy. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Colostomy and Ileostomy Care, dated 9/1/2004, indicated the following: - Most disposable pouching systems (used for the management of stool outside the body: consisting of a detachable bag to collect stool attached to an adhesive barrier/wafer that is affixed to the abdomen surrounding the colostomy opening) can be used from two to seven days. - Record the date and time of pouching system change in the treatment record. Resident #337 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with a diagnosis of exploratory surgery with colostomy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained appropriate infection control measures related to the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for two Residents (#125 and #52) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff wore gowns and gloves when providing care for Resident's #125 and Resident #52 who were both on Contact Precautions (intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, including epidemiologically important microorganisms, which are spread by direct of indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Transmission Precautions: Contact, dated 9/1/04, indicated the following: -In addition to Standard Precautions, Contact Precautions are used for residents known or suspected to be, infected or colonized with important microorganisms that can be transmitted by direct contact with the resident, or indirect (touching) with environmental surfaces or resident care items in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-09-04 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was accurately coded to reflect the correct status for one Resident (#129) out of three applicable residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that the MDS Assessment accurately reflected that Resident #129 was discharged home. Findings include: Resident #129 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI: bacterial infection of the urinary tract) and Sepsis (a life-threatening medical emergency that occurs when an infection triggers the body's immune system to damage its own organs and tissues). Review of Resident #129's Nurses Progress Note dated 7/18/24, indicated that the Resident had chosen to be discharged home on the same day (7/18/24) against medical advice (AMA). Review of Resident #129's July 2024 Physician's orders indicated an order to discharge the Resident with medications and services on 7/18/24. Review of 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARROLL, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 04/01/2010 |
| D'URSO, SEAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 04/01/2010 |
| MORGAN, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 04/01/2010 |
| SULLIVAN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 04/01/2010 |
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 10/06/2009 |
| NEWPORT REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 10/17/2022 |
| VILLAGE SQUARE, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2010 |
| ASGHAR, IRFAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2012 |
| BELL, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/02/2022 |
| BOLIO-DUPRE, KAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/20/2024 |
| DAVIS, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/25/2022 |
| DELCID, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/16/2022 |
| DILORENZO, SHERYL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/10/2014 |
| GRECO, PAULA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/06/2022 |
| MAROIS, LEANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/21/2021 |
| MILLS, KEVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/18/2021 |
| NICKERSON, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/06/2022 |
| RADULA, ALLISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/04/2021 |
| SANCHEZ, OCTAVIO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/03/2018 |
| STOCKWELL, JOY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/04/2000 |
| ALCAJAPE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2010 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/18/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 45 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 225452. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-22, 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.