Knollwood Nursing Center
87 Briarwood Circle, Worcester, MA 01606 · Non profit - Corporation · 82 certified beds · (508) 853-6910 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.3% | 16.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.2% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.6% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 15.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.3% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.2% | 15.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.4% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.2% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.3% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.9% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.18 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.57 | 1.50 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
65.4% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 77 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 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 41% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 65.4%CMS range 55.6–72.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.8–15.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 54.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 46.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 45.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 91.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.5%CMS range 3.0–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.61 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 82 beds and averages 76.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 5 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.53 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.44 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to facility residents on the steam table service area and on two (Bayberry Lane and [NAME] Lane) out of two facility kitchenettes. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that:1. [NAME] Supervisor #1 changed gloves and performed appropriate hand hygiene while working on the resident food service line in the kitchenette located between the Bayberry Lane and [NAME] Lane units and handling food, clean dishes and touching equipment and surfaces in the steam table service area. 2. food items were appropriately stored in the Bayberry Lane and [NAME] Lane kitchenettes. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 2001, indicated: -all personnel are trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections. -the use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. -perform hand…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#59) out of a total sample of 18 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice related to wound care. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that a verbal Provider order for a treatment change on wound care was transcribed and implemented when the Resident's wound was found to have increased in size and drainage, resulting in a delay of care and placing the Resident at risk for further wound deterioration and/or infection. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication and Treatment Orders, dated 2001, included but was not limited to the following: -Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing.-Verbal orders must be recorded immediately in the resident's chart by the person receiving the order .and include the time of the order. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in July 2018 with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice relative to the care and treatment of a urinary catheter (a small, soft, flexible tube in the bladder that drains urine from the body) device for one Resident (#7) out of a total sample size of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #7's urinary catheter drainage bag was not placed directly on the floor placing the Resident at risk for contamination and urinary infections. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Catheter Maintenance of Urethral/Suprapubic, dated 7/1/11, included but was not limited to: >Purpose: To reduce the occurrence of catheter associated infections. >Procedure: Do not rest the (drainage) bag on the floor. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses including Dementia and Urine Retention. Review the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/5/25, indicated Resident #7: -has severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-15 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — isolatedConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and Facility Assessment Tool review, the facility failed to implement the Facility Assessment Tool's staff training/education and competencies plan, and update the Facility Assessment Tool to accurately reflect the resident population and care needs for day-to-day operations and medical emergencies for one Resident (#5) out of one applicable resident with a tunneled hemodialysis catheter (a type of central venous catheter that is inserted under the skin and tunneled into a large vein). Specifically, the facility failed to identify and ensure the need for Licensed Nurse education/training and competencies related to day-to-day care and emergency care for residents on dialysis when Resident #5 was admitted to the facility, and his/her dialysis care needs were not identified on the Facility Assessment Tool. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), Care of a Resident with, last revised September 2010, indicated:-Residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-15 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to conduct an inspection of the mattress and bed rail to identify areas of possible entrapment for one Resident (#3) of two applicable residents, out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to inspect Resident #3's mattress and bed rail for entrapment risk when the facility changed the Resident's mattress from a standard pressure reducing mattress to an air mattress and the Resident used a quarter length upper bed rail in the upward position when in bed with a gap observed between the air mattress and bed rails. Findings include:Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guide to Reduce Entrapment, dated 3/10/06, indicated the following:- .air mattress replacements, and similar pressure reduction products that have therapeutic benefits such as reducing pressure on skin are easily compressed by the weight of a patient and may pose an additional risk of entrapment when used with conventional hospital bed systems.-When these…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview, policy review, and test tray results, the facility failed to serve palatable food at an appetizing temperature for the residents on two units (Bayberry and Willow) out of two units. Findings include: During a Resident Council meeting held on 8/22/24 at 1:29 P.M., several residents said that there have been concerns that hot foods are arriving to the units at cool/cold temperatures. Test trays were ordered and test trays tasting were conducted by Surveyor #1 and #2 on 8/23/24. On 8/23/24, between 8:17 A.M. and 8:28 A.M., Surveyor #1 observed the following on the Bayberry Unit: -The Meal Tray caddy doors were left open between tray removal. -The last resident tray was served at 8:28 A.M. On 8/23/24 at 8:29 A.M., Surveyor #1 observed the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) take temperatures of the Bayberry Unit test tray and beverages and the surveyor taste tested the food and beverage items on the tray with the following results: -Eggs: 95.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F), cold to taste -Sausage: 91 degrees F, cool to taste -Toast: 87 degrees F, cool to touch…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards for one Resident (#275) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to apply medical devices as ordered by the Physician to assist in managing Resident #275's Orthostatic Hypotension (a sudden drop in blood pressure that occurs with position changes from a seated or lying position to standing). Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Nursing Clinical Procedures, Subject: Elastic Stockings, dated 3/1/07, indicated, the following: -Purpose: to facilitate venous blood return (the flow of blood from the body back to the heart) in patients/residents with impaired circulation. -Special Considerations >apply the stockings in the morning, if possible . Resident #275 was admitted to the facility in August 2024, with diagnoses including Orthostatic Hypotension, and Tachycardia (an increased heart rate over 100 beats per minute [bpm] that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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 coordinate vision care services for one Resident (#49) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, for Resident #49, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident with a diagnosis of Glaucoma (a group of eye diseases that can cause vision loss and blindness by damaging a nerve in the back of the eye called the optic nerve [which sends visual information from the eye to the brain]) received proper treatment to maintain vision abilities, after receiving consent from the Resident's Health Care Proxy (HCP- the person chosen as the healthcare decision maker when the individual is unable to do so for themself) for vision care services. Findings include: Resident #49 was admitted to the facility in December 2022, with diagnoses including Glaucoma and Type 2 Diabetes (DM II - condition in which the body does not produce enough insulin hormone and has trouble controlling blood sugar [glucose] levels). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an environment that was free of accident and hazards for one Resident (#61), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure the safe temperature of a hot beverage prior to serving Resident #61, placing resident at risk of being burned by the hot beverage. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Nutrition Services -Food Temperature Recording Policy, revised 1/2014, indicated: -Beverages must be reheated at 15 second intervals and check temperature before serving to a resident. -No guidance for beverage temperature reheating was included in the facility policy. Review of Harvard Medical School research topics on scalding (to burn the skin with liquid), July 2023, at www.harvardhealth.edu indicated: -scalding of the skin from hot liquids could occur at temperatures as low as 120 Fahrenheit (F). Resident #61 was admitted to the facility in May 2024, with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to ensure that two Residents (#57 and #8) out of a total sample of 18 residents were free from significant medication errors. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #57, adhere to the Physician's order to administer a one-time dose of Trulicity (medication used to improve blood sugar control and reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with multiple risks for, or existing cardiovascular disease) when staff administered two doses of Trulicity to the Resident over two consecutive days, which increased the Resident's risk for low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). 2. For Resident #8, adhere to the Physician's order relative to sliding scale Insulin (progressive increase in the pre-meal . insulin dose, based on pre-defined blood sugar ranges) administration when Humalog (type of Insulin medication) was administered to the Resident outside of the ordered parameters for Insulin administration, which increased the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to follow sanitation and food handling practices in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's main kitchen to prevent the risk of foodborne illnesses. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure that Dietary Staff #3 performed hand hygiene (washing or sanitizing of hands) as indicated after touching her mask while handling resident food trays. 2. Ensure that Dietary Staff #1 changed gloves between food handling and used separate utensils for different types of food to prevent the potential for cross contamination. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or alternative soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: >after handling . contaminated equipment, etc. During an observation of the kitchen tray line on 8/23/24 at 7:45 A.M., the surveyor observed Dietary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain infection control measures to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two Residents (#25 and #225) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #25, appropriately store the Resident's oxygen tubing and nasal cannula (a thin flexible tube that provides supplemental oxygen through the nose via nasal prongs) when not in use, and change the Resident's oxygen tubing weekly as ordered by the Physician placing the Resident at risk for equipment contamination and infection. 2. For Resident #225, failed to position the urinary catheter drainage bag (a bag used to collect urine) off the floor to prevent the risk of contamination and infection. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy for Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection last revised November 2011, indicated: -change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed (PRN). -keep the oxygen cannula and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained complete clinical records related to an adverse interaction between two sampled Residents (#18 and #23), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to document: 1) the negative interaction for Resident #23, and 2) corresponding follow-up for both Resident #18 and Resident #23 after the adverse interaction occurred. Findings include: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in June 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances, Mood Disorder, and Delusional Disorder, and had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15 as indicated in a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in March 2021 with a diagnosis of Dementia with Mood Disorder and had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a BIMS score of 3 out of 15 as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-27 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were accurately coded to reflect the Residents' status for two Residents (#25 and #73) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the MDS assessment: 1. For Resident #25, was accurately coded relative to the use of Oxygen (a drug that is a vital and essential medication, usually prescribed to treat cardiac and respiratory conditions). 2. For Resident #73, was accurately coded relative to being discharged to home. Findings include: 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in April 2021, with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a life-threatening condition where the lungs cannot provide enough oxygen to the body or remove enough carbon dioxide from the body, with difficulty attaining normal blood oxygen levels). Review of the Resident #25's care plans, last revised 7/9/24, indicated: -The Resident was diagnosed with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MARTEL, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2016 |
| BOWLER, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/01/2016 |
| DUDLEY, ELAINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2011 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Massachusetts Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 225016. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-15, 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.