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

Holy Trinity Eastern Orthodox N & R Center

300 Barber Avenue, Worcester, MA 01606 · Non profit - Corporation · 113 certified beds · (508) 852-1000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (508) 852-1000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 9 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
70 Gold Star Blvd
Pharmacy
Cvs0.7 mi
44 W Boylston St · (508) 852-0238 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
117 Gold Star Blvd · (508) 853-7443 · Call to confirm hours
Park
91 Randolph Road, Worcester MA · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
Holy Trinity Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 300 Barber Ave · (508) 852-1000

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
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 increased9.6%16.4%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.5%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.6%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.6%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.6%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 injury2.8%3.4%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.1%15.4%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication19.2%19.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.1%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.8%21.2%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.2%21.4%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.1%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine89.1%77.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission29.5%25.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit16.8%11.9%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.441.881.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.711.501.80typical

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.

57.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 298 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

57.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
64.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.45U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.26hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 64.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 125 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% 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 SNF57.8%CMS range 52.6–63.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.7%CMS range 9.1–15.110.7%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 discharge64.8%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 discharge54.4%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 discharge53.6%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 identified98.8%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 setting100.0%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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%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 worsened1.2%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 hospitalization6.5%CMS range 4.0–9.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.911.02Oct 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

0.34
RN hours/ resident / day
1.34
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.21
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.89
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.14
RN hoursweekends
36.5%
Total nursing turnover
37.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 113 beds and averages 104.9 residents a day — about 93% 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.07 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-06)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-23)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · 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, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one Resident (#37) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, for Resident #37, the facility failed to ensure that fingernail care was provided when the Resident was dependent on staff for ADL care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Fingernail Care-Personal Care Needs, updated 9/1/23, indicated: -The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. -Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided on an ongoing basis. -Principles of nail care: >Nails should be kept smooth to avoid skin injury. >Only licensed nurses shall trim or file fingernails of residents with diabetes. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia affecting the right dominant side, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Review of the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-23 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Level II [comprehensive evaluation that identifies the specialized services required] Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR- evaluation done if it was determined by the Level I [initial pre-screening] screen that a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability and/or serious mental illness [SMI] and if a resident was in need of additional support services at the facility) screen was submitted for one Resident (#73) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, for Resident #73, the facility staff failed to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when the Resident demonstrated an increase in behavioral, psychiatric, and mood-related symptoms resulting in a change to the Resident's plan of care. Findings Include: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility in August 2023, with diagnoses including Anxiety (feeling of unease, such as worry or fear, that can be mild or severe/ intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations) and Depression (a mental…

    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 · Dcited before2024-09-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for the use of a positioning aid for one Resident (#6) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, for Resident #6, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for the use of bilateral (both sides) wedge cushions (a triangular shaped cushion used to aid in positioning for health issues or comfort) while the Resident was in bed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Body Positioning, released 1/17/17, indicated the following: -Positioning techniques should be used with residents with stroke and other neurological impairments for the following reasons: >Orthopedic enhancement of postural alignment >Increase stability -Documentation >In the care plan, document positioning needs and interventions and approaches to meet resident's needs. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in March 2020, with diagnoses including a history of Cerebral Infarction (stroke: damage to tissues in the brain caused by blood clots, disrupted blood supply and restricted 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-06-08 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure provided meals were palatable and of appropriate temperatures on two (Village Unit and Courtyard Unit), out of the two units observed. Findings include: During the initial pool process on 6/6/23 the survey team identified the following meal concerns: -Cold food -Bland food -Overcooked food 1. On 6/7/23 at 11:53 A.M., the surveyor observed the steam table arrive on Village Unit for lunch service. On 6/7/23 at 12:01 P.M., the surveyor observed the start of lunch trays being served to the residents in the Village dining room. On 6/7/23 at 12:32 P.M., the final meal had been delivered and the surveyor obtained the following temperatures and palatability with Activities Assistant #1: -pureed mac and cheese: 99 degrees Fahrenheit (F) tasted lukewarm, not hot, bland, with a runny consistency -pureed mixed vegetables:100 degrees (F), tasted lukewarm, not hot, bland, with a runny consistency -pureed stuffed peppers: 100 degrees (F), tasted lukewarm, not hot, with a runny consistency -regular consistency mixed vegetables: 98…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-06-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, policy reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff adhered to Infection Control policies/practices by encouraging social distancing and mask wearing for residents who were negative for COVID-19 infection and who were in close contact with symptomatic COVID-19 positive Residents (#18 and #23). The facility also failed to ensure appropriate donning (putting on) and doffing (removing), use of personal protective equipment (PPE), conduct testing by staff in a manner to minimize the spread of COVID-19 infection during an active outbreak on two of three units observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Protective Attire Technique, revised 2022, indicated that employees wear appropriate protective attire when providing care to residents in isolation. The policy also included the following: -Order of protective attire application and removal: Application: 1. gown 2. mask/eyewear/face shield 3. gloves Removal: 1. gloves 2. gown 3. mask/eyewear/face shield Review of the facility policy titled Corona Virus (COVID-19) Transmission…

    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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure access to a call light (a device used to alert staff of a request/need) for one Resident (#4), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, Resident #4's call light was not accessible during meals when he/she was eating in his/her room without staff presence/supervision. Findings include: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in April 2017 with diagnoses of Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia (where the lungs are unable to adequately oxygenate the blood and eliminate carbon dioxide, resulting in abnormally elevated carbon dioxide levels) and Dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 4/17/23, indicated Resident #4 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Review of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care plan, revised 5/5/23, included the following intervention: -call light to be within reach On 6/6/23 at 9:00 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #4 seated in 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for four Residents (#4, #10, #18 and #75), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically the facility failed to: 1) For Resident #4, implement the plan of care relative to Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and swallowing. 2) For Resident's #10 and #18, ensure the Physician's Orders relative to medication parameters were implemented. 3) For Resident #75, ensure the plan of care relative to fall prevention was implemented. Findings include: 1. For Resident #4 the facility failed to ensure the plan of care and/or Physician's Orders were implemented relative the level of supervision and adaptive equipment as recommended by the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP- clinician who assess, prevent, diagnose and treat swallowing disorders) to reduce the risk of aspiration (inhalation of food/fluid/substances into the airway and lungs). Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in April 2017 with diagnoses including…

    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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0773 — isolated
    Provide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
    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 report out of range laboratory values to the Physician for Resident (#75), and to obtain Physician ordered laboratory services for one Resident (#4), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically 1. For Resident #75, the facility failed to ensure its staff reported an out of range Valproic Acid level of 40 micrograms per milliliter (ug/ml), [normal range is 50-100 ug/ml], and 2. For Resident #4 the facility failed to provide Physician ordered laboratory services for liver function tests (LFTs- a test to help diagnose and monitor liver disease or damage) and Hemoglobin A1c (a test that measures the average blood sugar levels over the past three months) tests. Findings include: 1. Resident #75 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety disorder. Review of the Valproic Acid (level of Valproic acid in the blood when taking Depakote- a medication used as a mood stabilizer;…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · 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

    Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one Resident (#10), out of a total sample of 19 Residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure: a) Residuals (amount of liquid drained from the stomach following administration of enteral feeding [a form of nutrition that is delivered into the digestive system as a liquid via a feeding tube]) were documented in the clinical record. b) The order to obtain residuals was discontinued when the Resident transitioned to taking all meals by mouth. Findings include: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in December 2021 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Dysphagia and Gastrostomy (G-tube: a feeding tube surgically inserted through the abdomen and into the stomach to deliver liquid food/fluids/medications). Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 2/6/23, indicated Resident #10 was severely cognitively impaired as obtained from staff interview, was dependent on staff with eating, and had a feeding tube which provided greater then 51%…

    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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BITAR, SAMIRIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2024
TSOULES, WILLIAMIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2023
LIACOPULOS, EUGENIAIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2021
SELIM, MILADIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2021
BITAR, GABRIELAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
CHRISTO, LEAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2021
DIONIS, MICHAELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
KARALEKAS, DIANEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
KIRITSY, WILLIAMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
MCMAHAN, JOANNEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2021
MSHOOSHIAN, KATHERINEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2019
PALEOLOGOS, NICHOLASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
SEDARES, DEBORAHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/09/2025
SOTER TUCKER, MARLENEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2019
STAMAS, CHRISTOPHERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2020
MIRONIDIS, IOANNISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2019
PARRA, RODOLFOIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/14/2025
NEDELESCU, BOGDANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2004

CMS files one row per role, so the 45 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$12.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-18.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 43%Medicare 12%Other / private 45%

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

$435per resident / day
operating cost
$13,218per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$366per 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 225648. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-06, 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