Copley At Stoughton Nursing Care Center
380 Sumner Street, Stoughton, MA 02072 · For profit - Partnership · 123 certified beds · (781) 341-2300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 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 | 15.4% | 16.4% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.8% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 15.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.6% | 15.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.5% | 19.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.2% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.5% | 21.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 63.6% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.73 | 1.88 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.80 | 1.50 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
65.1% 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 421 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.8% 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 225 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 0.62 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 74% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 65.1%CMS range 61.1–68.4 | 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 | 12.1%CMS range 9.6–16.1 | 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 | 61.8% | 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 | 55.6% | 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 | 64.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.5% | 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 | 97.5% | 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 | 0.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.1%CMS range 4.9–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 123 beds and averages 94.8 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 28 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.52 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.41 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% 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.
22 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-07-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to 1.) develop and implement care plan interventions related to falls for one Resident (#76) resulting in a fall with injury and 2.) failed to implement a fall care plan for wearing the appropriate footwear for one Resident (#4), out of a total of 21 sampled Residents. Review of the facility's Managing Falls and Fall Risk policy, dated December 2007 indicated: *Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. Findings include: 1. Resident #76 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with a right hip fracture after falling in the community. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #76 scored an 11 out of a possible 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and that he/she required assistance with ambulation and transfers. 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 · D2026-01-14 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
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 family initiated a transfer to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) for an evaluation after concerns he/she may have fallen, the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was able to return to the Facility following his/her evaluation and considered Resident #1 discharged at the time of transfer. Findings include:Review of the Facility Policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns, dated as last revised 10/2022, indicated all residents and/or representatives are informed (in writing) of the facility and state (if applicable) bed-hold policies either well in advanced of any transfer or at the time of transfer (or, if the transfer was an emergency, within 24 hours).The Policy further indicated the requirement that residents be permitted to return to the facility following a hospitalization or therapeutic leave applies to all residents regardless of payor source.Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 01/02/26, indicated that Resident #1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that food was labeled and dated in the main kitchen and in three of three unit kitchenette refrigerators. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Preventing Foodborne Illness - Food Handling, revised July 2014, indicated, but was not limited to, the following:-Food will be stored, prepared, handled and served so that the risk of foodborne illness is minimized. Review of the undated facility policy titled Food Brought by Family/Visitors, revised July 2017, indicated, but was not limited to, the following:-Food brought in by family/visitors that is left with the resident to consume later will be labeled and stored in a manner that is clearly distinguishable from facility-prepared food.a. None-perishable foods will be stored in re-sealable containers with tight-fitting lids. Intact fresh fruits may be stored without a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 one Resident (#41) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication, out of a total sample of 24 residents.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated July 2022, indicated the following:-Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on an as needed (PRN) basis unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record.-As needed medication for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days.-For psychotropic medications that are not antipsychotic: if the prescriber or attending physician believes it is appropriate to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days, he or she will document the rationale for extending the use and include the duration for the PRN order.Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in October 2025 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.Review of Resident #41's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/26/25, indicated the Resident scored a 15…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment for one Resident (#91) out of 24 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement socks with grips to prevent falls as indicated in plan of care for Resident #91.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Fall and Fall Risk, Managing, revised December 2007, indicated:-The staff, with the input of the Attending Physician, will identify appropriate interventions to reduce the risk of falls.Resident #91 was admitted to the facility in August 2024 with diagnoses including a stroke, syncope (fainting), and history of fall. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/22/25, indicated Resident #91 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status exam score of 14 out of 15. This MDS also indicated Resident #91 required partial/moderate assistance with putting on and taking off socks.Review of Resident #91's plan of care related to falls, revised 8/19/25, indicated:-Ensure patient is wearing slip…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement pharmacy recommendations for one Resident (#41) out of a total sample of 24 residents.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Consultant Pharmacy Reports, dated 2024, indicated the following but was not limited to:-Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or prescriber.-Prescriber accepts and acts upon suggestion or rejects and provides an explanation for disagreeing.Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in October 2025 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.Review of Resident #41's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/26/25, indicated the Resident scored a 15 out of a total possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating he/she was cognitively intact.Review of the consultant pharmacist recommendations to the medical doctor (MD), dated 10/23/25, indicated the following:-This resident has an order for a psychoactive PRN (as needed) alprazolam without a stop date recorded.-After 14 days, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with acceptable professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from medication room on 1 out 3 medication units and failed to ensure medications were dated once opened according to manufacturer's guidelines in one of three medication carts observed.Findings include:Review of facility policy titled Medication Storage policy and Procedure, undated, indicated:-Medications and biologicals labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and include expiration date when applicable.On 12/2/25 at 11:35 A.M., the surveyor and Nurse #1 observed the following in the medication room on the [NAME] Unit.-1 bottle of GeriLanta (antiacid) expired 10/2025.During an interview with Nurse #1 on 12/2/25 at 11:35 A.M., she said nurses are responsible for ensuring no expired medications are in the medication room.On 12/2/25 at 11:49…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · 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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two Residents (#39 and #72) out of 24 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure healthcare personnel appropriately don (put on) a precaution gown while providing incontinence care for Resident #39 and Resident #72, who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).Findings include:Review of United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidance titled Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs), updated July 12, 2022, indicated:- Enhanced Barrier Precautions expand the use of PPE and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs to staff hands and clothing. - Examples of high-contact resident care…
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 · Fcited before2024-10-08 · 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 observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #31, who has an indwelling urinary catheter, that staff implemented Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities); and 2. An effective water management program was in place from 7/31/23 to 9/18/24 to prevent the potential growth of Legionella (bacteria that can cause legionellosis [illness caused by Legionella] including a pneumonia-type illness called Legionnaires' disease and a mild flu-like illness called Pontiac fever) and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens. Findings include: 1. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance…
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 before2024-10-08 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act promptly upon recommendations made by the Consultant Pharmacist during the monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRR) for one Resident (#93), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to act on the consultant pharmacist's recommendation to add a stop date to the Resident's as needed Ativan (an antianxiety medication) order. Findings include: Resident #93 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with diagnoses including dementia and anxiety. Review of Resident #93's medical record indicated he/she was seen by the Consultant Pharmacist in July 2024 and recommendations were made. The surveyor was unable to locate the July 2024 Consultant Pharmacist's recommendation in Resident #93's record. After inquiry, the facility provided Resident #93's July 2024 Summary of all Doctor Recommendations, dated 7/11/24, provided by the consultant pharmacist. The document indicated but was not limited to: -Resident #93 had an order for as needed Ativan without a stop date and that after 14 days, the use…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-08 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#93) drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure as needed antianxiety medications were limited to 14 days or extended beyond 14 days with a documented clinical rationale and duration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated July 2022, indicated but was not limited to the following: 12. Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on a PRN (as needed) basis unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record. a. PRN orders for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days. (1) For psychotropic medications that are NOT antipsychotics: If the prescriber or attending physician believes it is appropriate to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days, he or she will document the rationale for extending the use and include the duration for the PRN order. Resident #93 was admitted to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-08 · tag F0551 — isolatedGive the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#93) representative, as designated by the Resident, was able to make medical decisions for the Resident, in a sample of 22 records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident's representative was able to formulate the Resident's Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Advance Directives, revised September 2022, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the social services director or designee inquires of the resident, his/her family members and/or his or her legal representative, about the existence of any written advance directives. -The resident or representative is provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive if he or she chooses to do so. -If the resident is incapacitated and unable to receive information about his or her right to…
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 before2024-10-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 develop and implement an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial, and functional needs for two Residents (#93 and #37), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #93, to develop and implement interventions to address the Resident's risk for falls; and 2. For Resident #37, to ensure the care plan was updated when a Foley catheter (small flexible tube inserted into the urethra to drain urine from the bladder) used to manage the Resident's urinary retention was ineffective and changed to a larger size catheter in response following two episodes of urinary incontinence. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Falls - Clinical Protocol, revised September 2012, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Based on the preceding assessment, the staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and to address risks of serious consequences of falling. -If underlying…
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 · D2024-10-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#77 and #37), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #77, to identify and provide care for an implanted central line catheter (port, type of central line that allows for long-term access to a patient's bloodstream); and 2. For Resident #37, to ensure physician's orders for insertion of indwelling Foley catheters, including the size of the device, was obtained/documented in the medical record on three occasions. Findings include: Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated but was not limited to: Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from duly authorized prescriber that are received by a variety of methods (i.e.,…
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 · E2023-07-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for the changing of oxygen and nebulizer tubing for 5 Residents (#68, #16, #9, #22 and #67) in a total sample of 21. Findings include: Review of the facility form titled 11-7 nightly duties licensed nursing staff (undated) indicated to change and label oxygen [equipment] every Wednesday. Review of the facility policies titled Oxygen Administration, dated October 2010, and For the Set-Up, and Administration of Oxygen, and the Use of Oxygen Concentrators, undated, did not reference the changing or labeling of oxygen. Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medication through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer dated revised October 2010 indicated to change the equipment and tubing every seven days. 1. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility in September 2022, and had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and history pf pneumonia. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to assess a scoop mattress as a potential restraint for one Resident (#80) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraints, dated revised April 2017, indicated that prior to placing a resident in restraints, there shall be a pre-restraining assessment and review to determine the need for restraints. Further review indicated that restrained individuals shall be reviewed regularly (at least quarterly) to determine whether they are candidates for restraint reduction, less restrictive methods of restraints, or total restraint elimination. Resident #80 was admitted to the facility in December 2022 with diagnoses including stroke with left sided hemiparesis, dementia and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #80 scored a 7 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating severe…
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 before2023-07-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 implement the plan of care for 3 Residents (#22, #5 and #80) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated revised March 2022, indicated that the comprehensive, person-centered care plan describes the services that are to be furnished to attain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. 1. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in March 2014 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty eating), dementia with psychosis and blindness secondary to macular degeneration and glaucoma. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #22 scored a 4 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review indicated that Resident #22 was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. Review of the doctor's orders…
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 · D2023-07-31 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 the prescribed, therapeutic diet for one Resident (#67) out of a total sample of 21 Residents. Specifically, Resident #67 was prescribed a therapeutic ground textured diet and did not receive ground textures during meals. Findings include: Resident #67 was admitted to the facility in March 2020 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified dementia, and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #67's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated that the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental status score of 6 out of a possible 15 indicating that he/she has severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS indicated that the Resident requires extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The surveyor made the following observations: *On 7/27/23 at 8:24 A.M., Resident #67 was eating breakfast in his/her room. The meal ticket on the tray indicated a diet of HCC (a carbohydrate-controlled diet) Ground which indicates the Resident should be receiving Ground textured…
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 · D2023-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for 2 Residents (#22 and #80) out of a total sample of 21 Residents. Specifically, 1.) For Resident #22 the facility failed to ensure they maintained an accurate medical record for a) the application of foam booties, b) the application of a bed cradle, c) the setting of an air mattress. 2.) For Resident #80 the facility failed to ensure they maintained an accurate medical record for Prevlon boot application Finding include: 1. Resident #22 admitted to the facility in March 2014 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty eating), dementia with psychosis and blindness secondary to macular degeneration and glaucoma. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #22 scored a 4 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review indicated that Resident #22 is totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily…
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 · Bcited before2025-12-03 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one Resident (#1) out of 24 total sampled residents. Specifically, the use of antipsychotic medications was inaccurately coded in three MDS assessments for Resident #1.Findings include:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in November 2013 with diagnoses including a psychotic disorder with delusions.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/1/25, indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status exam score of 15 out of 15. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated:-Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 received antipsychotic medication.-Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 received antipsychotic medication.-Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 received antipsychotic medication.Review of Resident #1's physician's orders indicated:-Abilify Tablet (an antipsychotic…
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 · B2024-10-08 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge assessment to ensure timely coding and transmitting of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two Residents (#25 and #42), out of two resident assessments reviewed, resulting in a delay in the encoding and transmission of an MDS post-discharge from the facility. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 Manual Chapter 2: Assessments for the RAI, dated October 2023, indicated but was not limited to: -The MDS must be transmitted (submitted and accepted into iQIES) electronically no later than 14 calendar days after the care plan completion date (V0200C2 + 14 calendar days). 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 for short-term skilled rehabilitation services and discharged to the community in May 2024. Review of the medical record indicated the discharge MDS was not completed until 9/30/24 approximately four months following the Resident's discharge from the facility. During an interview on 10/8/24 at…
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 · Bcited before2024-10-08 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed for three Residents (#80, #93, and #76), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #80, accurately code the Resident's prognosis of less than six months on the 9/4/24 MDS; 2. For Resident #93, a. Accurately code hospice care on the 3/1/24 MDS, b. Accurately code a fall with injury on the 5/29/24 MDS, and c. Accurately code the Resident's prognosis of less than six months on the 8/28/24 MDS; and 3. For Resident #76, accurately code the Resident's use of antipsychotic medication on the 8/21/24 MDS. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Electronic Transmission of the MDS, revised October 2023, indicated but was not limited to the following: - All staff members responsible for completion of the MDS receive training on the assessment, data entry, and transmission processes, in accordance with the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, before being permitted to use the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GODDARD RESTORATIVE CARE UNIT IN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 67% | since 11/19/2024 |
| SAVING LONG TERM CARE CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 11/18/2024 |
| O'CONNELL UNDA, MARIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| CONNOR, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| TYER, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 $562K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 225653. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-03, 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.