Sudbury Pines Extended Care
642 Boston Post Road, Sudbury, MA 01776 · For profit - Corporation · 92 certified beds · (617) 512-6625 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0605, F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.9% | 16.4% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.4% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.7% | 15.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.1% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 15.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.1% | 19.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.8% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 47.9% | 21.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.37 | 1.88 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 1.50 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.3–16.8 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 66.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 0.0% | 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 4.0–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 92 beds and averages 85.6 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.97 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.70 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% 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.
32 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-22 · 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
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent contamination and the spread of foodborne illness to residents.Specifically, the facility failed to discard spoiled food and food that was past the use by date, failed to label and date prepared food and opened food packaging, and also failed to ensure dietary staff were wearing hair restraints in the main kitchen while preparing food.the facility failed to discard food that was past the use by date and failed to maintain the Station 2 nourishment kitchenette in a clean and sanitary manner. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Food Safety, revised 5/2025, indicated: -It is the policy of this facility to provide safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption of all food including food and fluids brought to residents by family and other visitors. This includes storage, preparations, distribution, and serving food in accordance with professional standards for food service and safety. -The facility will follow proper…
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 before2026-04-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that two Residents (#5 and #49) out of a total sample of 18 residents, were treated in a dignified manner by Certified Nurse Aides (CNA #2 and #1) who were providing assistance with meals.Specifically, the facility failed to:for Resident #5, provide a dignified dining experience when CNA #2 remained standing over the Resident at his/her bedside while assisting the Resident with his/her breakfast meal.for Resident #49, provide a dignified dining experience to the Resident, when CNA #1 remained standing while providing assistance with the breakfast meal at the Resident's bedside. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Assistance with Meals: Dignified and safe dining experience, revised April 2025, indicated: -Residents who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort and dignity, for example: a. Not standing over residents while assisting them with meals Review of the facility policy titled…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-22 · 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#3) of five applicable residents sampled for unnecessary medications, out of a total sample of 18 residents, was free from unnecessary psychotropic (any drug that affects behavior, mood, thoughts or perception) medications.Specifically, for Resident #3, the facility failed to ensure that laboratory monitoring was completed as ordered by the Physician for Clozaril (Clozapine: an antipsychotic medication used to treat severe Schizophrenia) medication use and levels, placing the Resident at risk of Clozaril toxicity and medical complications. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use, revised September 2025, indicated:-Diagnoses of a specific condition for which antipsychotic medications are necessary to treat will be based on a comprehensive assessment of the resident.-All antipsychotic medications will be monitored with necessary lab values and EKG (an electrocardiogram) monitoring as indicated by the Attending Physician (i.e. see Clozaril guidelines for ANC…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-22 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post daily required nurse staffing information as required.Specifically, the facility failed to:-post the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff (Registered Nurses [RN], Licensed Practical Nurses [LPN] or Licensed Vocational Nurses [LVN], and Certified Nurses' Aides [CNA]) directly responsible for providing resident care per shift.-maintain a copy of the facility staffing records for 18 months.-post the staffing information in an area easily assessable to residents, staff, visitors. Findings include:The surveyor observed for the duration of the facility survey, that the nurse staffing information was handwritten with an erasable marker on a wipe-off board posted in the corner of the entrance to the Unit One dining room. The surveyor also observed that the wipe-off board with the handwritten nurse staffing information was located above eye level. The surveyor further observed that the handwritten information on the wipe-off board did not include the following requirements:-posting of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice for medication administration and ensure that significant medication errors did not occur for one Resident (#54) of four applicable residents for medication administration, out of a total sample of 18 residents.Specifically, for Resident #54, the facility failed to ensure that a Myrbetriq Extended Release Medication (used to treat overactive bladder) was not crushed per the manufacturing and pharmacy instructions on the medication label prior to the Nurse administering the medication to the Resident, when crushing the Myrbetriq Extended Release Medication would increase the likelihood of destroying the extended-release mechanism, causing the entire dose to be released at once (dose dumping), placing the Resident at risk of serious medical side effects. Findings include:Review of Highlights of Prescribing Information, revised on 3/2021, retrieved fromhttps://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/213801s000lbl.pdf, indicated:-Adult patients: Swallow…
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 · D2025-06-10 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff to meet his/her care needs, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy when 1) on 5/07/25 Certified Nurse Aide (CNA ) was witnessed by a staff member to slap Resident #1 on the arm and 2) approximately on month prior CNA #1 had been witnessed by another staff member to slap Resident #1 on the arm, however neither staff member reported the alleged incident of abuse immediately as require, therefore placing Resident #1 and other residents at risk for abuse. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Abuse Policy, titled Abuse Prohibition Police and Procedure, dated as revised November 2017, indicated that all employees are responsible for identifying and reporting immediately to their supervisor any witnessed abuse or allegation of abuse they are told about by residents, families, visitors or other staff. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in April 2019, diagnoses included dementia, heart…
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 · F2025-03-06 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on documentation review and staff interview, the Facility staff failed to comprehensively assess the facility resources needed to provide sufficient support and care for the resident population as outlined in the Facility Assessment. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment, dated 1/9/25, indicated the following: - Religious, ethnic, or cultural factors that affect the delivery of care and services, such as: Facility Answer: -Food and Nutrition requirements: many modified diets for dysphagia, puree or moist ground with thickened liquids. -Activities: no significant factors identified. -Language translation requirements: One resident speaks Creole understands simple English and this resident has expressive aphasia in both English and primary language. The Facility did not fully assess, describe, or identify all ethnic or cultural groups specific to their population. -Equipment and Supplies (medical and non-medical): Facility Answer: sufficient resources. The facility did not identify medical and non-medical equipment and supplies needed to provide sufficient support…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents in a dignified manner. Specifically, 1. On the Station 1 and Station 2 Units, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience. 2. For Resident #60, the facility failed to ensure staff consistently covered his/her catheter drainage bag. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dignity, dated August 2009, indicated Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality. Residents shall be treated with dignity and respect at all times. Treated with dignity means the resident will be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth. Staff shall treat cognitively impaired residents with dignity and sensitivity. 1. On 3/4/25 from 8:30 A.M. to 8:35 A.M., the surveyor observed a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was standing while feeding a resident in bed on the Station 2 Unit. On 3/4/25 at 9:58 A.M., a staff member was observed standing over a resident during breakfast…
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 · E2025-03-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 provide a homelike environment during dining on two of two nursing units. Specifically, on the Station 1 and Station 2 Units, residents were observed eating meals on meal trays in the dining rooms. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Homelike Environment, dated 3/5/25, indicated To create a more homelike safe environment that offers our residents greater dignity and autonomy, ensuring resident's preferences, needs and values guide decisions and care. On 3/4/25 at 8:09 A.M., the surveyor observed Station 2's dining room, all residents were served their meals on meal trays and staff did not remove the meal trays. On 3/4/25 at 12:01 P.M., the surveyor observed Station 1's dining room, all residents were served their meals on meal trays and staff did not remove the meal trays. On 3/4/25 at 12:05 P.M., the surveyor observed Station 2's dining room, all residents were served their meals on meal trays and staff did not remove the meal trays. On 3/5/25 at 8:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Station 2's dining room,…
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 · E2025-03-06 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess the use of an alarmed velcro seat belt as a potential restraint for one Resident (#18) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraints, dated April 2017, indicated 1. Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body. 2. The definition of a restraint is based on the functional status of the resident and not the device. If the resident cannot remove a device in the same manner in which staff applied it given that resident's physical condition, and this restricts his/her typical ability to change position or place, that device is considered a restraint. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses that included dementia, dysphagia, repeated falls, and anxiety disorder. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-06 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), for seven Residents (#18, #24, #58, #61, #26, #39, and #9) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. For Residents #18, #24, #58, #61, #26 and #39, the facility failed to provide assistance and/or supervision with meals as per the plan of care. 2. For Resident #9, the facility failed to provide assistance with grooming. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), dated March 2018, indicated Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care including appropriate support and assistance with: d. Dining (meals and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-06 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 4. Resident #78 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, moderate protein calorie malnutrition and diabetes. Review of Resident #78's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 6 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated that the Resident did not have any pressure ulcers. Review of the Braden Score for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk Assessment, dated 12/2/24, indicated that Resident #78 was at high risk for development of pressure ulcers with a score of 10. Review of Resident #78's most recent wound consult note, dated 2/28/25, indicated the following: -Stage 3 pressure ulcer (full thickness wound) is located on the sacrum. -Wound size is 1.5 cm (centimeters) length, 1.0 cm width and 0.1 cm depth. -Assessment: Not improved stage 3 pressure ulcer. -Off loading discussed: suggest mattress upgrade. Review of Resident #78's active care plan, dated 5/10/24, indicated, I have pressure ulcer or…
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 · E2025-03-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 ensure it provided an environment free of potential safety hazards for three Residents (#60, #17, and #41) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #60, the facility failed to ensure nursing provided two-person assistance with a lift (Sara lift, a sit-to-stand style lift). 2. For Resident #17, the facility failed to ensure he/she was consistently provided with a smoking apron while smoking. 3. For Resident #41, the facility failed to ensure nursing provided a bed and chair alarm as ordered by the physician and plan of care. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Lifting Machine, Using a Mechanical, dated as revised July 2017, indicated the purpose of this procedure is to establish the general principles of safe lifting using a mechanical lift device. It is not a substitute for manufacturer's training or instruction. -General Guidelines: 1. At least two (2) nursing assistants are needed 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 · Ecited before2025-03-06 · 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 observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care and services consistent with professional standards of practice were provided for three Residents (#34, #50, and #69) out of sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #34, the facility failed to ensure that nursing changed Resident #34's oxygen tubing as ordered by the physician. 2. For Resident #50, the facility failed to routinely change and date nebulizer tubing. 3. For Resident #69, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was being administered per the physician's order. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration, undated, indicated the following: Purpose -The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Preparation -Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's order or facility protocol for oxygen administration. -Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-06 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — patternProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 3. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility in November 2021 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #62's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 1/23/25, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 0 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated the Resident is dependent for activities of daily living including eating and that the Resident complains of pain or difficulty with swallowing. Review of Resident #62's active eating assistance care plan, dated as revised 2/1/23, indicated, I have been known to try to grab out at others food. I do not know what to do with my utensils, so I need to be fed. I also have been known to take my napkin and put it in my food, my dementia has been progressing. The care plan also indicated, eating goals over the next 90 days: dependent [sic] Review of Resident #62's active cognitive function care plan, revised 9/2/23, indicated I have impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes r/t…
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 · E2025-03-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored drugs and biologicals in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Specifically, 1. The facility failed to ensure treatment carts and medication rooms were locked while a nurse was not present. 2. The facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the medication room and medication carts on two of two units. 3. The facility failed to ensure that medications were dated once opened, according to manufacturer's guidelines. Further, the facility failed to ensure that medications with shortened expiration dates were removed from the medication cart when expired and were not available for administration in two of two medication carts observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Storage of Medications, dated April 2007, indicated The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers,…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when one Resident (#28), out of a total sample of 26 residents, was not utilizing a Bipap (Bilevel positive airway pressure, a machine used to treat sleep apnea) machine as indicated in the physician's orders. Findings Include: Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in March 2016 with diagnoses that include acute on chronic respiratory failure, obstructive sleep apnea and paranoid schizophrenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24 indicated that a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating that the Resident is cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated oxygen use, and did not indicate the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (Bipap). Review of Resident #28's physician orders indicated the following orders, dated 2/12/25: -BIPAP: Change BIPAP Device water daily (use sterile or distilled water). [sic] -BIPAP: Apply BIPAP Device at night and as needed (titrate oxygen to maintain SATS (oxygen saturation)…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report a bruise of unknown origin to the State Agency within the mandated time-frame for one Resident (#24) out of a total of 26 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, reviewed 10/21/24, indicated It is the policy of the facility to assure an environment free of abuse, neglect, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property. At risk resident: Resident with the highest risk, i.e., at risk of abuse and neglect include resident who have dementia; residents with no/few visitors; residents who are totally dependent on care; residents with communication disorders. Protection and Notification: Upon receiving an allegation of abuse, supervisors will take necessary steps to protect all residents and then immediately notify the Director of Nursing Services who will notify the Administrator. If the Director of Nursing is unavailable then the report will go directly to the Administrator. The facility will report and investigate all allegations of resident abuse,…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an bruise of unknown origin, for one Resident (#24) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically for Resident #24 who on 2/16/25 was found to have a bruise under his/her left eye by a Certified Nurses Aide, the facility staff failed to complete a thorough investigation. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, reviewed 10/21/24, indicated It is the policy of the facility to assure an environment free of abuse, neglect, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property. At risk resident: Resident with the highest risk, i.e., at risk of abuse and neglect include resident who have dementia; residents with no/few visitors; residents who are totally dependent on care; residents with communication disorders. Protection and Notification: Upon receiving an allegation of abuse, supervisors will take necessary steps to protect all residents and then immediately notify the Director of Nursing Services who will notify the Administrator. If the Director of Nursing is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · 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 3. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, shortness of breath, bacterial pneumonia, and asthma. Review of Resident #50's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated that he/she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam score of 9 out of a possible 15, indicating he/she has moderate cognitive impairments. Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #50 requires dependent assistance for daily self-care activities and is on oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #50's physician orders indicated the following: -Oxygen 2-3 liters via nasal cannula to maintain O2 Sats above 88% - document that O2 on by initialing (3 OF 3), every shift, initiated 3/14/24. -Place portable liquid oxygen on when out of room, initiated 4/24/24. Review of Resident #50's oxygen care plan indicated the following: -Oxygen settings: I have O2 (oxygen) via nasal prongs/mask @ (2-3) L (liters) continuously, initiated 3/14/24. -Provide me…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised by the interdisciplinary team for two Residents (#28 and #70) out of a total sample of 26 residents, after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. Specifically, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan after quarterly assessments were completed to reflect the current status of the Residents. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person- Centered, reviewed 10/21/24, indicated the following: -A comprehensive, person- centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. -The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. -The comprehensive person-centered care plan will: -g. Incorporate…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#24), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess the Resident who is dependent on staff for care was found with a bruise under his/her left eye. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, anxiety and depression. Review of Resident #24's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/14/25, indicated he/she was assessed by nursing staff to have moderate cognitive impairments. The MDS further indicated he/she needed partial/moderate assistance from staff for eating. On 3/4/25 at 7:40 A.M. , the surveyor observed Resident #24 in bed with a dark purple bruise under his/her left eye. On 3/4/25 at 11:52 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #24 in the dining room with a dark purple bruise under his/her left eye. Review of Resident #24's weekly skin check, dated 2/18/25, indicated…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide treatment and services related to an indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine outside the body), for one Resident (#60) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically for Resident #60, the facility staff failed to a.) implement the physician's orders related to the correct the indwelling catheter balloon size and b.) change the urinary drainage bag as ordered by the physician, increasing the Resident's risk for indwelling urinary catheter complications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, dates as revised September 2014, indicated the purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. 1. Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses including neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis 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 record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#35) who required renal dialysis (a life sustaining treatment that helps the body remove extra fluids and waste products from the blood when the kidneys are not able to) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #35 the facility failed to ensure nursing did not obtain blood pressures from his/her arm with the AV (arteriovenous fistula, is when an artery and vein connect directly, allowing blood to flow) fistula. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pre-Dialysis and Post Dialysis Treatment, dated 9/26/24, indicated the purpose of this policy is to ensure safe monitoring guidelines to assess dialysis patients before and after treatment to identify complication for early intervention. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility in October 2017 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, diabetes, and glaucoma. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 a comprehensive plan of care was developed for Trauma Informed Care for one Resident (#3) who had a history of trauma out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #3, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive trauma care plan, with individualized triggers. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring, dated 12/16, indicated the following: Policy Statement -Behavioral symptoms will be identified using facility approved behavioral screening tools and the comprehensive assessment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation -Interventions and approaches will be based on a detailed assessment of physical, psychosocial and behavioral symptoms and their underlying causes, as well as the potential situational and environmental reasons for the behavior. The care plan will include, as a minimum: -A description of the behavioral symptoms, including frequency, intensity, duration, outcomes, location, environment, and precipitating factors or…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 provide a diet of personal preferences to one Resident (#3) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a banana for all three meals per his/her meal ticket. Findings Include: Resident #3 admitted to the facility in April 2022 with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, dysphagia, and dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/9/25, indicated the Resident was assessed by staff to have severely impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #3 requires dependent assistance for self-care activities. During an observation on 3/4/25 at 8:08 A.M., Resident #3 was observed eating breakfast in the dining room. The breakfast included pureed meat and eggs, honey thickened coffee and cranberry juice. Further review of Resident #3's meal ticket indicated the following Assist Instructions: High protein. Banana with all meals. Resident #3 did not receive a banana for breakfast. During an observation on 3/5/25 at 8:05 A.M. and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for two Residents (#24 and #50) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #24, the facility failed to document a bruise below his/her left eye that was first observed on 2/16/25 by nursing staff. 2. For Resident #50, the nursing staff documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) that a nebulizer tubing was replaced when it was not. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Charting and Documentation, dated 7/17, indicated the following: Policy Statement - All services provided to the residents, progress toward the care plan goals, and any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Policy Interpretation and Implementation -…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate an assessment with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR- is a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care. PASARR requires that: 1) all applicants to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility be evaluated for a serious mental disorder and/or intellectual disability; 2) be offered the most appropriate setting for their needs [in the community, a nursing facility, or acute care setting]; and 3) receive the services they need in those settings) program for one Resident (#3) out of a total sample of 18 total residents. Specifically, the facility failed to refer Resident #3 for a Resident Review (person-centered assessment taking into account all relevant information) when he/she was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder (serious chronic mental illness), was being treated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice, for one Resident (#58) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Obtain a Physician's order to determine the appropriate liter flow for Oxygen administration to Resident #58, for a Resident with diagnoses that require prescribed flow rates to prevent hypercapnia (high carbon dioxide levels in the blood). 2. Store and handle oxygen tubing in a sanitary manner, to decrease the risk of contamination and infection for the Resident. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration, undated, indicated a Physician's order was necessary for the administration of Oxygen. Review of the facility's policy titled Nasal Cannula Oxygen Administration, undated, indicated the following: -The nasal cannula delivers oxygen in low concentrations. -Verify the Physician's order . -Set the liter flow. -Place tips of the cannula into the patient's nostrils, loop the tubing…
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 · C2025-03-06 · tag F0582 — widespreadGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide an accurate estimated cost of services to residents or their representatives, for two out of two resident records reviewed, to ensure they were informed of their potential financial liabilities of the cost of items and services provided. Findings include: The SNF ABN (CMS-10055) notice is administered to a Medicare recipient when the facility determines that the beneficiary no longer qualifies for Medicare Part A skilled services and the resident has not used all of the Medicare benefit days for that episode. The SNF ABN provides information to residents/beneficiaries so that they can decide if they wish to continue receiving the skilled services that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility. Review of the notices provided to two residents who came off their Medicare Part-A Benefit, who remained at the facility, were provided Advanced Beneficiary Notices included an estimated cost of services of $400 to $600 for skilled nursing services. During an interview on 3/6/25 at 10:51 A.M., Social…
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 before2025-03-06 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two Residents (#41 and #60), out of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #41, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment was accurately coded for upper extremity range of motion (ROM, section GG). 2. For Resident #60, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment was accurately coded for cognition (section C). Findings include: 1. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in December 2019 with diagnoses including glaucoma, dementia, and psychosis. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/26/24, indicated that Resident #41 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Review of the section GG indicated the following: Section GG Upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand), coded as 0, no impairment. On 3/4/25 at 8:14 A.M., and at 9:59 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 without the use of palm protectors, his/her bilateral hands…
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 before2024-03-15 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two active Residents (#36 and #3) out of a total sample of 18 active Residents reviewed, and one discharged Resident (#86) out of a total sample of one discharged resident reviewed. Specifically, the facility staff failed to accurately code the MDS Assessment: 1. For Resident #36, relative to the use of Insulin (medication used to control one's blood sugar) injections (administering medication into one's body using a needle). 2. For Resident #3, relative to a skin condition and the use of pain medication for treatment. 3. For Resident #86, relative to discharge status. Findings include: 1. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in March 2018 with a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus (DM: disease that affects how the body uses blood sugar). Review of Resident #36's March 2023 and April 2023 Physician's orders indicated: -Humalog (Insulin: medication used to control one's blood sugar) Subcutaneous (by injection) Solution 100 Units per Milliliter (ml) . per sliding…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HENDERSON, ROBERTA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/1983 |
| JAIN, SANDEEP | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/29/2014 |
| SUDBURY PINES EXTENDED CARE FACILITY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/17/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 87% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $480K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 225531. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-22, 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.