Greenwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
90 Greenwood Street, Wakefield, MA 01880 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 36 certified beds · (781) 246-0211 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.8% | 16.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 15.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.2% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 15.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.8% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.2% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.4% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.80 | 1.88 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 1.50 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 28.9 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-07 · 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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for Residents in the facility's dining room. Specifically, the facility to ensure dependent Residents were fed at the same time while sitting together in the dining room.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Residents' Rights, undated, indicated the following:- As a Resident of a long-term care facility you have the right: to be treated with dignity and respectReview of the facility policy titled Supervision of Resident Nutrition, undated, indicated:-Residents needing assistance in eating must be promptly assisted upon being served. The surveyor made the following observations throughout the survey period in the facility's main dining room:- On 8/5/25 at 12:21 P.M., during lunch service, two residents dependent on staff for eating were sitting at the same table in the dining room. A staff member sat down to help the first resident while the second resident sat at the table with his/her tray in front of him/her unable to eat. The second resident attempted to open the lid…
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 · E2025-08-07 · 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 observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff members served meals to Residents in the facility's dining room under sanitary conditions with acceptable hand hygiene practices.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Feeding Policy, undated, indicated the following:- Feeding Technique: 2. Treat resident with dignity and respect, 3. Wash handsReview of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene Policy, undated, indicated the following:- After Resident Contact: When? Clean your hands after touching a resident and his/her immediate surroundings when leaving the resident's side.The surveyor made the following observations throughout the survey period in the facility's main dining room:- On 8/5/25 at 12:22 P.M., during lunch, the Activities Assistant was sitting between two Residents at a dining room table. The Activities Assistant was alternating feeding two residents at the same time without performing hand hygiene between feeding each resident. The Activities Assistant then left the table to help another resident at a different table by adjusting…
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 · E2025-08-07 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 and interview, the facility failed to document in the medical record that residents above the age of [AGE] years old received Pneumococcal immunizations for 4 out of 5 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to document in the medical record when the residents received the Pneumococcal vaccine, the vaccine name, the lot number, and the expiration date. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Pneumonia immunization policy' with no revision date indicated the following:-Licensed staff will review immunization consent form and educational materials with resident or responsible party being sure all risks and benefits are understood.-Check for allergies which may preclude vaccination.-Administer vaccine as ordered.-Document on MAR, medication administration and site.-Document in Nurse's notes, consent form, and immunization form resident vital signs, vaccine name, lot number, expiration date, injection site, resident response to injection, and resident/responsible…
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 · D2025-08-07 · 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 observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a physician's order for the use of Geri Sleeves as ordered for one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 15 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was wearing Geri Sleeves as indicated by the physician's order.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Physician Order Policy, undated, indicated the following:- Policy Statement: All physician orders must be documented, dated and signed by a licensed practitioner authorized to prescribe in accordance with applicable laws and facility protocols.- Procedure: Order Types - Physician orders may include: Medication orders, Treatment and therapy orders.- Documentation: Orders must be promptly transcribed to the resident's medical record and Medication Administration Record (MAR)/Treatment Administration Record (TAR).- All orders must be reviewed by the charge nurse before implementation.Resident #14 was admitted to the facility in December 2023…
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 · D2025-08-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary activities of daily living (ADLs) for one Resident (#26) out of 15 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide necessary supervision and assistance with eating.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, undated, indicated:-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: Dining (meals and snacks).Review of the facility policy titled Supervision of Resident Nutrition, undated, indicated:-Residents needing assistance in eating must be promptly assisted upon being served.Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in December 2024 with diagnoses including a history of aspiration pneumonia (a respiratory infection that occurs when food, saliva, or stomach acid enters the airway accidentally) and dementia.Review of the most…
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 · D2025-08-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for treatment for a newly developed stage 2 pressure ulcer for one Resident (#13) out of a total sample of 15 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to obtain an order for zinc oxide cream before using it to treat a newly developed stage 2 pressure ulcer on Resident #13's right buttock.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Physician Order Policy, undated, indicated the following:- Policy Statement: All physician orders must be documented, dated and signed by a licensed practitioner authorized to prescribe in accordance with applicable laws and facility protocols.- Procedure: Order Types - Physician orders may include: Medication orders, Treatment and therapy orders.- Documentation: Orders must be promptly transcribed to the resident's medical record and Medication Administration Record (MAR)/Treatment Administration Record (TAR).- All orders must be reviewed by the charge nurse before…
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 · D2025-08-07 · 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 (#22) out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement a padded side rail while Resident #22 was in bed to protect from injury.Findings include:Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with diagnoses including dementia and malnutrition.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/30/25, indicated Resident #22 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15. On 8/5/25 at 7:23 A.M., and 2:08 P.M., and on 8/6/25 at 6:43 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #22 in bed with his/her right side rail in place. This right side rail had no padding during each of these observations.Review of Resident #22's physician's order, initiated 8/23/24, indicated:-Padded 1/2 (half) side rail: on right side up when in bed. Review of Resident #22's care plan, revised 1/21/25, indicated the Resident pushes staff away during hands on care. The 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 · D2025-08-07 · 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 ensure staff maintained accurate medical records for one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 15 Residents. Specifically, the facility documented that the Resident was wearing Geri Sleeves when he/she was not.Findings include:Resident #14 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and dementia.Review of Resident #14's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS indicated that the Resident is totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living.The surveyor made the following observations:- On 8/5/25 at 8:23 A.M., 10:35 A.M. and 12:14 P.M., Resident #14 was sitting in his/her wheelchair in the dining room. Resident #14's forearms were visible, no Geri sleeves were being worn.- On 8/6/25 at 7:35 A.M., Resident #14…
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 · E2023-04-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 and interview the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained to prevent the spread of infection during 1) medication pass and 2) in the dinning room. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Nursing Equipment Cleaning Protocol and dated as revised 3/1/21, indicated that blood pressure (BP) cuffs and rolling BP monitor will be cleaned between residents with bleach germicidal wipes or 70% isopropyl alcohol. 1a. During medication pass on 4/19/23, at 8:11 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 bring the rolling BP monitor from the hall into a resident's room and without cleaning the BP cuff and the oximeter (used to take the oxygen level in the blood, SpO2) Nurse #1 obtained the BP and SpO2 of the resident. Nurse #1 then placed the contaminated rolling BP monitor unit back in the hall without cleaning it. 1b. During medication pass on 4/19/23, at 8:32 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 bring the rolling BP monitor from the hall into a resident's room and without cleaning the BP cuff and the oximeter. Nurse #1 obtained the BP…
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 before2023-04-20 · 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for 2 Residents (#11 and #4) out of a total sample of 15 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy, titled Feeding Policy, indicated the following: *Treat residents with dignity and respect *Assure proper positioning of resident 1. Resident #11 was admitted in September, 2018 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #11 was unable to participate in a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) as the Resident is seldom/never understood. Further review of the MDS indicated the Resident is totally dependent on staff for eating. Review of Resident #11's Activities of Daily Living care plan indicated the Resident is dependent on staff for eating. Review of Resident #11's Nursing Summary, dated 03/20/23, indicated the Resident is totally dependent on staff for eating. During an observation on 04/19/23 at 08:07 A.M., 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 · D2023-04-20 · 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 ensure plan of care for use of side rail was followed for 1 Resident (#25) out of a total 15 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled 'Bed Rail Use Policy', undated indicated the following: Procedure: * f. The facility will document ongoing need for the use of a bed rail. * j. Resident care plan will include use of bed rails as assessed. - Based upon the individualized comprehensive assessment if it is determined that bed rails will be indicated to assist resident in maintaining or improving functional ability and do not constitute a restriction as defined as a restraint, bed rails may be utilized and care planned with consent of the resident/ resident representative to meet the individualized need. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety disorder, glaucoma bilateral. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] 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 · D2023-04-20 · 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 change a wound dressing, as ordered, for 1 Resident (#12) out of a total 15 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled 'Wound Care Monitoring and Documentation' undated, indicated the following: Procedure: * F. Dressings shall be assessed each shift to ensure the wound is clean, dry and dressing is intact and dressing care documented in the progress note section of the medical record. * G. The dressing will be dated, timed and initialed by the nurses at the time of application and/or change. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in August 2016 with diagnoses including, congestive heart failure, kidney disease, dementia and failure to thrive. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/16/23, revealed that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam (BIMS). Resident #12 scored a 3 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #12 had no behaviors and did not reject care. During an observation on 4/19/23…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5 percent. One out of one nurse observed made 2 errors in 26 opportunities on one of two units resulting in a medication error rate of 7.69%. These errors impacted 2 Residents (#11 and #7) out of 4 residents observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 6-1 Medication Administration Specific Procedures and dated 1/1/23, indicated that the nurse is to pour the correct number of tablets or capsules into the medication cup. 1. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, chronic back pain and high blood pressure. Review of the doctor's orders dated April 2023 indicated an order for Metformin (used to treat diabetes) 500 mg (milligrams) two tablets (1,000 mg) by mouth twice daily at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. During medication pass on 4/19/23, at 8:32 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 give Metformin 500 mg one tablet. During an interview on 4/19/23, at 9:02 A.M., Nurse #1…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWEENEY, MATTHEW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 01/01/2005 |
| WOODS, THOMAS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 75% | since 01/01/2005 |
| ELMI, SAIED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2001 |
| GOUVEIA, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| TILLEY, DIANE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/13/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $256K 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 225736. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.