No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Vantage at Westfield LLC

60 East Silver Street, Westfield, MA 01085 · For profit - Corporation · 98 certified beds · (413) 729-5018 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (413) 729-5018 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Resident-funds citation (F0565)1 actual-harm citation$12,735 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $12,735 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-11)
  • 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
43 Broad St · (413) 562-2600 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
7 E Silver St · (413) 568-5116 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Big Y0.4 mi
1 E Silver St · (413) 568-1001 · Call to confirm hours
Park
31 W Silver St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 1 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 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 1 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.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased24.2%16.4%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.6%5.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.8%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.9%1.8%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.1%15.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.8%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened36.4%15.4%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.1%19.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.3%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.8%4.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control31.7%21.2%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table25.2%21.4%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine87.2%77.7%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission32.9%25.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit17.0%11.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.621.881.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.751.501.80worse

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.

56.6% 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 165 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

56.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
31.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.40U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.16hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 31.9% 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 72 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF56.6%CMS range 48.7–63.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.3%CMS range 8.4–16.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge31.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge19.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge41.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting95.7%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened5.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.6%CMS range 4.7–12.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.001.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.54
RN hours/ resident / day
0.81
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.14
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.49
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
50.0%
Total nursing turnover
46.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 98 beds and averages 66.4 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.60 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-14)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-07)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2026-03-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records reviewed, interviews, and observations, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required a wheelchair accessible platform scale for weight monitoring, the Facility failed to maintain a safe, hazard free environment, when the dual ramp platform scale was obstructed on three of four sides, limiting staff access needed to safely assist the resident during weighing. On 12/31/25, Resident #1 began to fall from his/her wheelchair, and due to the obstructed access, Certified Nurse Aide #1 was unable to position herself to provide adequate physical assistance. As a result, Resident #1 fell to the floor and sustained a forehead laceration requiring five sutures.Findings include:Review of the Facility Policy titled Safety and Supervision of Residents, dated as revised in 2007, indicated the Facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. The Policy further indicated that resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-14 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure grievances and concerns reported during the Resident Council meetings in February and March 2026 were addressed timely and that a response/rationale by the facility was provided to the Council to address the concerns.Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that:-The facility provided a response to the concerns brought forth during Resident Council about timeliness of call bell response on the A-wing in February 2026.-The response by the facility relative to the repeated concerns about the timeliness of call bell response in March 2026 were relayed to the Resident Council. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Resident Council, created January 2017, indicated the Resident Council is mandated by law and is the recognized forum established for the residents to voice their ideas and/or concerns regarding their environment and care. This governing body works closely with the administration of the facility and other staffs to possible [sic] affect changes and resolve problems within the facility…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on records reviewed and interviews for four of four sampled residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4), who all had a diagnosis of Diabetes (a condition when a hormone called insulin does not work properly or there is not enough of it which causes the level of glucose (sugar) in the blood to become too high), the facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Flow Sheets related to meal intake were not consistently completed and often left blank.Findings include:Review of the Facility Policy titled, Charting and Documentation, dated as last revised July 2017, included but was not limited to: -All services provided to the resident, progress toward care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. Review of the Facility Policy titled, Nursing Care of the Resident with Diabetes Mellitus, dated as last revised in 2015, included but was not limited 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-29 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide 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 records reviewed and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a change in condition requiring a transfer to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED), the facility failed to ensure they communicated pertinent clinical information to the ED when there was no clinical, medical, or contact information sent with the resident or communicated to the ED at the time of transfer. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in June 2025, diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, osteomyelitis (a bone infection) to his/her left ankle and foot, as well as a diabetic ulcer on his/her left heel. During a telephone interview on 07/25/25 at 1:15 P.M., the Emergency Department (ED) Nurse said on the morning of 06/16/25, Resident #1 was transported to the ED via Ambulance from the Facility. The ED Nurse said when Resident #1 arrived, she received verbal and written report of his/her condition from the paramedics, however the only documentation she received from the Facility was a Face Sheet (which includes demographic information such as 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-01-07 · tag F0730 — pattern
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a performance review at least once every 12 months for five Certified Nurses Aides ([CNA's] #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5) out of five employee records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for CNA's #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 as required, to address areas of weakness identified in the evaluation and the special needs of the facility residents. Findings include: Review of the facility employee records indicated that: -CNA #1 was hired on 1/21/22 -CNA #2 was hired on 5/15/18 -CNA #3 was hired on 10/16/23 -CNA #4 was hired on 12/19/17 -CNA #5 was hired on 11/27/18 Further review of the employee records did not indicate that performance evaluations had been completed for the employees for the past 12 months. During an interview on 1/7/25 at 11:22 A.M., CNA #1 said that she had worked at the facility for over a year and had never received an employee performance evaluation since being employed at the facility. During an interview on 1/7/25 at 2:28 P.M., the Director of Nursing…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure 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 provide care consistent with professional standards of practice relative to the use of compression stockings for one Resident (#51) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Assess Resident #51 for the proper use of compression stockings for the Resident's lower extremities when the Resident had lower extremity swelling and staff applied improperly fitted compression stockings, which increased the Resident's risk for impaired skin integrity and blood circulation. Findings include: Review of the Cardinal Health document titled T.E.D. (thrombo-embolic-deterrent: type of hosiery used to prevent blood clots) Anti-Embolism (obstruction of an artery, typically by a clot of blood or an air bubble) Stockings, dated 2020 and located at https://www.cardinalhealth.com/content/dam/corp/web/documents/brochure/cardinal-health-ted-anti-embolism-stockings-for-acute-care-brochure.pdf indicated: -T.E.D. Anti-Embolism…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 provide care according to professional standards of practice for one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 17 Residents, relative to nutrition interventions and weight monitoring when the Resident was identified as being at nutritional risk and had severe weight loss. Specifically, for Resident #14, the facility failed to: -Implement Provider recommendations in a timely manner for a nutrition consult. -Implement weekly weight monitoring, as recommended by the Physician Assistant (PA) when the Resident was identified with greater than 20 pounds weight loss over a period of two weeks. -Accurately monitor and record the Resident's meal intake percentage. -Accurately assess the Resident for weight loss when the Resident had a severe weight loss of greater than 10% in less than six months. Findings Include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention, dated 2001 and last reviewed March 2022, 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
    Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
    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 staff competencies were assessed for three employees (Certified Nurses Aides [CNAs #7 and #8], and Activities Assistant [AA #1]) out of three employees reviewed and relative to meal monitoring and documentation for one Resident (#14). Specifically, the facility failed to: -Assess competency for Activities Assistant (AA) #1 relative to accurately monitoring meal percentage intakes when AA #1 was tasked with monitoring and recording resident meal percentage intakes in the facility's main dining room and AA #1 monitored and recorded an inaccurate meal intake for Resident #14. -Assess nursing assistant competencies, identified by the facility for assessment, for CNAs #7 and #8 upon hire, and since working at the facility, when CNAs #7 and #8 were working in the facility and providing direct care to residents. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment Work Document, dated 8/5/24, indicated the following: -The facility provided care for residents with cognitive impairments. -The facility…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#366) out of a total sample of 17 residents, was free from unnecessary medication administration. Specifically, for Resident #366, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident had adequate indication for the use of an antibiotic medication (Clarithromycin - used to treat chest and skin infections) that was ordered by the Physician to be administered for twenty-nine days. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Monitoring and Management, dated 1/1/21, indicated: >When a resident receives a new medication, the medication order is evaluated for the following: -The dose, route of administration, duration, and monitoring are in agreement with current clinical practice, clinical guidelines, and/or manufacturer's specifications for use. -A written diagnosis, an indication, and/or documented objective findings support each medication. -The prescriber documents the clinical rationale in the resident'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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of a medication error rate of five percent (5%), or greater when one Nurse (#1) out of three Nurses observed during the medication pass procedure, made two errors in 27 total opportunities, for a medication error rate of 7.41%, impacting one Resident (#45) out of five residents observed, out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, for Resident #45, the facility failed to ensure that: -Nurse #1 did not crush medications that were not ordered to be crushed. -Nurse #1 properly administered two Extended Release (ER) medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated 1/1/21, indicated: -Tablet Crushing/Capsule Opening: Crushing tablets may require a Physician's order, per facility policy. -Long acting or enteric coated dosage forms should not be crushed, an alternative should be sought. -Consult with the Pharmacist for an alternative medication. -The Pharmacist should be contacted to review all medications being…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#45) out of a total sample of 19 residents were free from significant medication errors. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the proper administration of Isorbide Mononitrate ER (an extended release [ER] medication used to prevent chest pain) and Metoprolol Succinate ER (an extended-release medication used to treat chest pain and high blood pressure) when the manufacturer's specifications regarding the preparation and administration of both medications were not followed, putting the resident at risk for worsening cardiac symptoms. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated 1/1/21, indicated: -Tablet Crushing/Capsule Opening: Crushing tablets may require a Physician's order, per facility policy. -Long acting or enteric coated dosage forms should not be crushed, an alternative should be sought. -Consult with the Pharmacist for an alternative medication. -The Pharmacist should be contacted to review all medications…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards of practice for one Resident (#25) out of a total sample of 18 residents, increasing the risk of contamination and the spread of infections to the Resident and other residents within the facility. Specifically, for Resident #25, the facility staff failed to appropriately follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP's: the use of protective gowns and gloves during high contact care activities that may provide opportunity for transmission of medication resistant organisms through staff hands and/or clothing), while providing: -high contact care to the Resident when performing ADLs (Activities of Daily Living such as bathing, dressing, grooming, personal hygiene). -administration of an Intravenous (IV- method of delivering medication through the vein) medication to the Resident. Finding include: Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revised March 2024, indicated: -Enhanced…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - tasks such as bathing, grooming, maintaining dental hygiene, nail and hair care) assistance for one Resident (#12) out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident's nails were trimmed, when the Resident was dependent for care. Findings include: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in February 2013 with diagnoses including hemiplegia (one-sided muscle paralysis) and hemiparesis (partial weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body) following cerebral vascular disease affecting right dominant side (paralyzed on his/her right side due to a stroke). Review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised 5/1/23 indicated the following: -Based on the comprehensive assessment of a patient and consistent with the patient's needs and choices, the Center must provide the necessary care and services 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-29 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
    Provide or obtain dental services for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to ensure that routine dental services were provided for one Resident (#38), out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that an annual dental exam and prophylactic (preventative) cleaning every six months were completed as recommended. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dental Services, revised 9/1/22, indicated the following: -Centers will provide or obtain from an outside resource routine and emergency dental services, including 24-hour emergency dental care, to meet the needs of each patient. -Routine dental services means an annual inspection of the oral cavity for signs of disease .dental cleaning . Resident #38 was admitted to the facility in December 2021. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 9/12/23, indicated the Resident scored a 9 out of 15 in the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) indicating the Resident was moderately cognitively impaired and was usually able to make him/herself understood. During an…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 record review and interview the facility failed to maintain complete medical records for one Resident (#57) out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, for Resident #57, who was being monitored for weight loss, the Certified Nurses Aides (CNAs) failed to consistently monitor and document meal intake percentages as required, per the Resident's Nutritional Risk care plan. Findings include: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with a diagnoses including left tibia (bone in the leg) fracture, left fibular (bone in the leg) fracture, and Dementia with behavioral disturbance (a condition that impairs memory and is accompanied by behavioral or psychological disturbances such as agitation, depression, and psychosis). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a 5% or more weight loss in the last month and was not on a Physician prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of the Dietitian's Nutritional assessment dated [DATE], indicated 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $12,735 — penalty dated 2026-03-11

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 VANTAGE CARE — 10 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.4-0.4 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 1 of 52.3-1.3 vs chain
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
VANTAGE CARE MA4 LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 12/01/2023
JPW MASS HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST15%since 12/01/2023
AREM, CHERYLIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST21%since 12/01/2023
BROWN, YOSSIIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST21%since 12/01/2023
HERSKOVITZ, MIRIAMIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST21%since 12/01/2023
YUROWITZ, SAMIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL21%since 12/01/2023
UMANA, ERIKOIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 12/01/2023
DAHDUL, ADNANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.

$6.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-25.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$821K
Related-party expense10% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 63%Medicare 15%Other / private 22%

This home reported $821K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$440per resident / day
operating cost
$13,368per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$351per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Massachusetts
$14,448/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,817/mo
Nursing home (private)
$9,600/mo
Assisted living

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 225380. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-14, 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.

What to do next