Tremont Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center
605 Main Street, Wareham, MA 02571 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 104 certified beds · (508) 295-1040 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $285,936 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-05)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 2025-04 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 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 | 19.9% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.9% | 15.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.2% | 15.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.7% | 19.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.8% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.6% | 21.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 43.5% | 21.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 48.0% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.0% | 11.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 1.88 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.96 | 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.
45.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 12.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 31 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 45.3%CMS range 31.7–59.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.2–16.8 | 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 | 12.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 6.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 16.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.9–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 104 beds and averages 96.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 8 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.82 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were maintained when providing care for three Residents (#14, #75, and #10), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:1. For Residents #14 and #75, narcotic pain medications were administered in accordance with the prescribed parameters in the physician's order; and 2. For Resident #10, a splint/palm guard was not applied to the Resident's left hand after it was discontinued. Findings include: Review of [NAME], Manual of Nursing Practice 11th edition, dated 2019, indicated the following: -The professional nurse's scope of practice is defined and outlined by the State Board of Nursing that governs practice. Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated: -Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-11 · 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, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Maintain an infection prevention and control program which included a complete and accurate system of surveillance to identify any trends or potential infections; and2. Ensure nasal cannula oxygen tubing was stored in a sanitary manner to protect it from potential contamination by germs and environmental debris for one Resident (#14), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control Program, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following: -The facility has a system in place for prevention, identification, reporting and control of infections and communicable diseases of residents-Responsibility for ongoing collection and analysis of data and required follow up is assigned 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 · E2026-02-11 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — patternHave policies on smoking.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, document review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a smoking policy, that included a process for their independent smokers ensuring designated smoking areas, proper receptacles for safe cigarette disposal, and the storage of the lighting and smoking materials for 8 out of 16 current smokers in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Memorandum titled Smoking Safety in Long Term Care Facilities, dated 11/10/11, included but was not limited to:-Facilities must include assessment of smoking areas and provision of emergency equipment in the designated smoking areas. -The facility is obligated to ensure the safety of designated smoking areas which includes protection of residents from weather conditions. -The facility is also required to provide portable fire extinguishers and requires each smoking area be provided with ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. Metal containers with self-closing covers into which ashtrays can be emptied…
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 before2026-02-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional principles in one out of two medication carts observed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in the container with the pharmacy label; and ensure topical use medications were stored separate from oral medications.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility, dated as revised December 2019, indicated but was not limited to, the following:-All medications dispensed by the pharmacy are stored in the container with the pharmacy label.-Orally administered medications are kept separate from externally used medications and treatments such as ointments and creams.-Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are without secure closures are immediately removed from inventory, disposed of. During an observation with interview on 2/10/26 at 9:21 A.M., the surveyor inspected a medication cart on Unit B with Nurse #1 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 · E2025-01-07 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 an ongoing program of individual and group activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of Residents on one (B Unit) of two nursing units and specifically for two out of 21 sampled Residents (#6 and #48). Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #6, to ensure that staff offered and encouraged engagement in activities according to their comprehensive assessment and identified preferences; 2. For Resident #48, to ensure that staff offered and encouraged engagement in activities according to their comprehensive assessment and identified preferences; and 3. To ensure staff provided a meaningful and engaging activity program, including materials for self-directed activity, for residents residing on the B Unit (secured). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Activity Programs, last revised August 2017, indicated but was not limited to: -Recreational activities…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-07 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections for four Residents (#294, #295, #40 and #144), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically the facility failed: 1. For Resident #294, to maintain sanitary conditions of a nebulizer tubing set up and mask (parts of the nebulizer to administer aerosolized medications); 2. For Residents #295 and #40, to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by staff while providing close contact care for a Resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP); and 3. For Resident #144, to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by staff while providing close contact care for a Resident on EBP and contact precautions. Findings include: 1. Review of the National Health, Blood and Lung institute document on How to use a Nebulizer, dated October 2021, indicated but was not limited…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for one Resident (#40), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to administer medications per physician's orders. Findings include: Review of Lippincott Nursing Procedures, Eighth Edition, [Wolters Kluwer], 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -To promote a culture of safety and to prevent medication errors, nurses must avoid distractions and interruptions when preparing and administering medications and adhere to the five rights of medication administration: identify the right patient by using at least two specific identifiers; select the right medication; administer the right dose; administer the medication at the right time; and administer the medication by the right route. Recent literature identifies nine rights of medication administration, which in addition to the five rights includes the right documentation, the right action (or appropriate reason for prescribing the medication), the right form, and the right…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-07 · 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 observation, document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure it provided an environment free of potential safety hazards for one Resident (#59 ), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered safely and not left at the Resident's bedside unsecured by the licensed staff. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration - Oral, dated June 2015, indicated but was not limited to the following: PROCEDURE: Identify resident; verify that medication is being administered at the proper time, stay with the resident until he/she has swallowed the medication Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 and has diagnoses including: Visual disturbances, mild cognitive loss and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) for Resident #59, dated 10/2/24, indicated the Resident suffered from moderate cognitive impairment with a score of 11 out of 15. During an observation with interview on 1/2/25 at 8:01 A.M., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents receiving psychotropic medications receive gradual dose reductions (GDR) unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs for one Resident (#6), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a GDR of the antipsychotic medication Seroquel was attempted, unless documented by the prescriber as clinically contraindicated in the medical record. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Management, dated April 2015, indicated but was not limited to: -Antipsychotic medications will be prescribed at the lowest possible dosage for the shortest period of time and are subject to gradual dose reduction and re-review. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, major depression, and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 10/25/24, indicated Resident #6 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all medications used in the facility were safely and securely stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure unauthorized personnel do not have unsupervised access to medications in one of two medication rooms as required. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage Room/Medication Cart Policy, dated February 2018, indicated but was not limited to: -Medications are stored primarily in a locked mobile medication cart which is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel. -Storage for other medications will be limited to a locked medication room. On 1/3/25 at 2:15 P.M., the surveyor observed consultant psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) #3 ask Nurse #2 to unlock the medication room so he could go inside and make a telephone call. Nurse #2 unlocked the medication room, and opened the door. Multiple medications, including emergency kits which contain medications including but not limited to anticoagulants, insulin,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · 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 ensure staff provided food that accommodated the allergies, intolerances, and preferences of one Resident (#85), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident was not served gluten (a protein found in some grains including wheat) and onions despite being listed as allergens in the Resident's medical record; and sausage despite preferences listed to not receive. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Allergies, dated April 2015, indicated but was not limited to the following: Policy: -To identify and respond to all allergic reactions. Procedure: -Interview resident/family to determine if there are any allergies to food/drugs, or other substances. -Review all clinical documents to determine if there are any allergies. -Record allergies on Physician's Order Sheet and Medication and Treatment Administration Record (MAR and TAR). -Notify the Dietary Department if there are any food allergies. Review of a U.S. Foods Menu Solutions document 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 · Ecited before2024-08-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care in accordance with professional standards of practice for six Residents (#15, #36, #39, #47, #42 and #30), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Residents #15, #36, #39, and #47, to ensure a physician's order was in place to transfer them to the hospital; and 2. For Resident #42, to ensure a physician's order was followed to obtain a blood pressure prior to administering antihypertensive medication (used to lower blood pressure); and 3. For Resident #30, to ensure Physician's orders were in place to include PICC line catheter flushing before and after administration of intravenous antibiotic medication according to professional standards of practice and facility policy. Findings include: Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated but was not limited to: Nurse's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-05 · 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, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the medication and treatment carts were locked when not in direct supervision of the licensed nurse; and 2. Ensure safe storage of medications and biologicals according to current standards of practice. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration- Oral, dated June 2015, indicated but was not limited to: - Medication carts are always locked when unattended. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage Room/Medication Cart Policy, dated February 2018, indicated but was not limited to: - Policy: The facility provides pharmaceutical services that are conducted in accordance with accepted ethical and professional standards of practice and that meet applicable Federal, State and Local Laws, rules and regulations. - Procedure: - Medications are stored primarily in a locked mobile…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-05 · 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, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to follow their policy and professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the main kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition; 2. Ensure two of two unit kitchenettes were maintained in a clean and sanitary condition; 3. Ensure food items were properly labeled, dated, and stored in the main kitchen; and 4. Ensure food items were properly labeled and dated in two of two unit kitchenettes. Findings include: 1. Review of the 2022 Food Code by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), revised 1/2023, indicated but was not limited to the following: 3-305.11 (A) Except as specified in paragraphs (B) and (C) of this section, food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food (1) in a clean, dry location. 4-602.11 (D) Equipment is used for storage of packaged or unpackaged food such as a reach-in refrigerator and the equipment is cleaned at 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 · Ecited before2024-08-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, document review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure COVID-19 testing was conducted in accordance with manufacturers guidelines during a COVID-19 outbreak; 2. Ensure Personal Protective Equipment was donned/doffed (put on/ taken off) according to current professional standards; and 3. Ensure Resident #48 performed hand hygiene prior to flushing his/her gastrostomy tube (G-tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition and medication directly to the stomach). Findings include: 1. Review of the OSang Healthcare (OHC) COVID-19 antigen self-test manufacturer's instructions for use, dated as revised 2/2023, indicated but was not limited to: - Set the timer and read the test result at 15 minutes. Do not read the result after 20 minutes. -Warning: Inaccurate test…
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 · D2024-08-05 · 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 reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a need to alter treatment significantly for two Residents (#9 and #30), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #9, to ensure the Resident's physician and Resident Representative (RR) were notified of the recommendations made by the Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) to adjust psychotropic medication because of the Resident's continued fluctuations of mood with paranoid behavior; and 2. For Resident #30, to ensure the physician was notified that STAT (urgent) labs were not obtained timely. Findings include: 1. Resident #9 was admitted in February 2024 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, paranoid personality disorder, PTSD, and vascular dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/10/24, indicated that Resident #9 scored 6 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating that he/she was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the Psychiatric…
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 · D2024-08-05 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that necessary information was communicated to the receiving health care institution to ensure a safe and effective transition of care for one Resident (#36), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Resident #36 was admitted in June 2023 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease and repeated falls. Review of Resident #36's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/28/24, indicated that he/she was discharged to the hospital with return anticipated. Review of Resident #36's Nursing Progress Note, dated 6/28/24, indicated Resident #36 was found on the floor, 911 was called to transfer the Resident to the hospital, and the Resident's Health Care Proxy and physician were notified. Further record review indicated that there was no evidence showing that any communication was made to the receiving hospital from the facility. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 8:41 A.M., the Staff Development Coordinator said that for hospital transfers, the SBAR tool…
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 before2024-08-05 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards for one Resident (#34), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete his/her quarterly smoking evaluation and safety screen. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Smoking, dated as revised 11/2020, indicated but was not limited to: -Residents who smoke will be evaluated for their ability to smoke safely upon admission, quarterly and as dictated by any significant change in condition, to ensure that they continue to be capable of smoking and use smoking materials without presenting a danger to themselves or others. The need for assistive and/or safety devices will be identified and noted in the residents individualized care plan. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with the following diagnoses: dementia and hypertension. Review of Resident #34's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/28/24, indicated he/she was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 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 · D2024-08-05 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that necessary behavioral health care and services were provided to create an environment to maintain the highest psychosocial well-being for two Residents (#34 and #9), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to review and revise the behavioral health care plan when the Residents had a change in condition. Findings include: 1. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with the following diagnoses: depression, anxiety, schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and insomnia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/28/24, indicated Resident #34 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 and received antipsychotic and antidepressant medication. Review of Resident #34's care plan indicated but was not limited to: -Focus: Resident has episodes of anxiety/history of anxiety (revised 7/12/21) Interventions: encourage participating in activities of interest as form of diversion…
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 · B2026-02-11 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to provide written documentation related to transfer discharge notices and bed hold upon hospitalizations and ensure this information was part of the medical record for two Residents (#1 and #8), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Reservation of beds (Massachusetts), dated as revised 11/8/2016, indicated but was not limited to the following: -This facility will reserve the bed of a hospitalized resident in accordance with facility policy, State and Federal regulations. Review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Policy and Procedure, undated, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Social services will ensure systems are implemented to provide written notification to the resident/responsible party prior to transfer/discharge in accordance with Massachusetts DPH/Division of Health Care Facility Licensure-In the event of an unplanned transfer to an acute care setting, notice will be provided in writing to the resident/responsible party as soon…
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 · C2024-08-05 · 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 document review and interview, the facility failed to conduct and implement a comprehensive facility wide assessment that was inclusive of resources necessary to provide both emergency and day to day care of the population the facility currently serves. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the identification for residents with special treatments and conditions the facility consistently provides services for was accurately completed; 2. Failed to identify facility Resources needed to provide competent support and care for resident population every day and during emergencies; and 3. Failed to accurately identify Managing Health Care System. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment Tool last updated 6/15/24 and last review with QAA (quality assessment and assurance)/QAPI (quality assurance performance improvement) committee 6/27/24. 1. Review of the Facility Assessment Tool Part 1 section 3 titled Acuity failed to identify Number/Average or Range of Residents with Special Treatments and Conditions including but not limited to: - Respiratory - Oxygen…
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
$285,936 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $15,569 — penalty dated 2024-03-05
- $270,367 — penalty dated 2023-10-26
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ATHENA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS — 22 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 1.7 | +2.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATHENA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS MA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2010 |
| MOSIER, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 5% | since 12/01/2010 |
| SANTILLI, LAWRENCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 79% | since 10/07/2019 |
| ATHENA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 89% 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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Massachusetts Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 225488. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, 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.