Notre Dame Long Term Care Center
559 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA 01605 · Non profit - Corporation · 123 certified beds · (413) 687-2491 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
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 fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.4% | 16.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.9% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 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 | 3.4% | 3.4% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.2% | 15.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.1% | 19.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.1% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 21.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.0% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.9% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.4% | 11.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.17 | 1.88 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.76 | 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.
52.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 165 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 120 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 52.8%CMS range 44.4–61.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 8.0–15.4 | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | 54.2% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 3.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 4.1–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 123 beds and averages 120.3 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.30 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%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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 · E2026-05-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff stored and labeled all drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice, as required, for two (Cuvilly Unit High Side and Cuvilly Unit Low Side) of the three medication carts reviewed.Specifically, for the Cuvilly Unit High Side medication cart and the Cuvilly Unit Low Side medication cart, the facility failed to ensure that medications were appropriately stored and labeled in the two medication carts when loose, unlabeled pills were observed in both medication carts. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Medication Cart Cleaning, dated December 2023, included:-All Medication Carts will be cleaned and organized weekly on the 11-7 shift On 5/6/26 at 8:20 A.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager (UM) #3 observed in the Cuvilly Unit High Side medication cart thirty-five loose pills, paper remnants and elastics, as well as powder in the corners of the drawer that holds resident specific medication cards. During an interview at the time, UM #3 said the concern would…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a person-centered care plan, relative to eating assistance and supervision, was implemented for one Resident (#12) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #12, the facility failed to implement supervision by one staff and assist of one staff as needed to set up meals as required, when the Resident experienced a significant weight decline and was care planned for feeding assistance and supervision.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Meal Serving, revised February 2012, included but was not limited to:*All residents able to receive oral feeding are properly positioned to facilitate eating. Any resident requiring assistance with meals receives help as needed. Adaptive equipment is provided as ordered to assist individual residents as needed.-Residents who are able to eat outside of their rooms are served in the dining areas.-Residents incapable of feeding themselves will be assisted…
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 · D2026-05-08 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered per professional standards of practice for two Residents (#90 and #104) out of a total sample of 24 residents, resulting in two significant medication errors. Specifically, 1.for Resident #90, the facility staff failed to obtain a blood pressure reading per the Physician's order, prior to administering Amlodipine Besylate (medication used to treat high blood pressure) and to hold (not give) the Amlodipine Besylate medication for a Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP- top number of a blood pressure reading) that measured less than 110 millimeters of Mercury (mmHg) in accordance with the Physician's order, placing the Resident at risk for cardiac compromise, hypotension (extremely low blood pressure) and related complications such as dizziness, fainting and vision changes. 2.for Resident #104, the facility staff failed to hold Amlodipine Besylate, Torsemide (diuretic medication used to treat fluid retention and high blood pressure), and Valsartan (medication used to treat…
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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Licensed Nurse (Nurse #2) had the specific competencies and skill sets necessary to provide wound care for one Resident (#84). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Nurse #2 had the knowledge, competency and skills relative to infection control practices when providing wound care for Resident #84. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Competency, undated, indicated: -Facility would ensure all nursing staff maintain high standards of patient care and safety. -Each nurse is responsible for maintaining their competency through training, evaluation, and professional development. -Nurses are required to periodically demonstrate continued proficiency in their roles through assessments, evaluations or skills check. -Common areas assessed include clinical skills, patient care, medication administration, infection control practices, communication skills and ethical decision-making. -Nurses undergo regular performance evaluations where their competencies are assessed by supervisors or…
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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
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 provide Adaptive Eating Equipment for one Resident (#75) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide built-up handled adaptive utensils for meals as required to preserve Resident #75's current level of function during meals. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Adaptive Equipment, undated, indicated: -Adaptive equipment for meal service in a nursing home is designed to help residents with varying physical abilities eat independently, safely, and comfortably. -Built-up Handle Utensils: These have thicker handles to make gripping easier for people with limited hand strength or dexterity . Resident #75 was admitted to the facility in April 2021 with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia and Muscle Weakness (Generalized). Review of the Resident's Activities of Daily Life (ADL) care plan, revised 6/3/24, included an intervention for eating of .Black Silverware .during meals. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-12 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards of practice for two Residents (#103 and #84) out of a total sample of 23 residents, increasing the risk of contamination and the spread of infection to the Residents and other residents within the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #103, ensure that staff appropriately followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP's: the use of protective gowns and gloves during high contact care activities that may provide opportunity for transmission of medication resistant organisms through staff hands and/or clothing), while providing high contact care. 2. For Resident #84, ensure that staff adhered to infection control standards and hand hygiene practices while performing wound care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 2001, revised August 2022, included but was not limited to: -Enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) are used as an infection prevention and control intervention to reduce the spread of…
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 before2024-11-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had recently sustained a fractured left tibia (lower leg) of unknown origin and whose comprehensive plan of care indicated he/she required assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, the Facility failed to ensure staff consistently implemented followed this interventions, therefore placing the resident at risk for potential injury. Findings include: Review of the Facility's policy, titled Care Plans- Comprehensive, dated 10/2010, indicated an individualized comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs would be developed for each resident. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in June 2021, diagnoses included poly-osteoarthritis (multiple joints with arthritis that occurs when flexible tissue at the ends of bones wears down) and frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (dementia affecting the front and temporal lobes of the brain). Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review and interview, the facility failed to accurately and safely ensure that routine and emergency medications and pharmaceutical services were provided to meet the needs of each facility resident. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that: 1. expired medications were removed from the medication carts on two units (West and Harmony Village) out of three units observed. 2. three open medication Emergency Box Kits on one unit (South) were re-ordered as required. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Facility, dated 2017, indicated: -Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from inventory, disposed of according to the procedures for medication disposal. -All expired medications will be removed from the active supply and destroyed in the facility, regardless of the amount remaining. Review of the facility polity titled, Medication Cart Cleaning, undated, indicated: -All medication Carts…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards for three Residents (#98, #171 and #70) who tested positive for COVID-19, on three out of three units observed, and for one Resident (#75) during treatment and care of a wound, out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure: 1. For Residents (#98 and #171), that staff performed appropriate hand hygiene and wore personal protective equipment (PPE) when caring for COVID-19 positive residents, to mitigate the spread of infection during a COVID-19 outbreak in the facility. 2. For Resident #70, that staff implemented Isolation Precautions and posted appropriate signage outside of the Resident's room after they tested positive for COVID-19. 3. For Resident #75, that the staff performed hand hygiene during a pressure ulcer wound care procedure. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for Infection Control Personal Protective Equipment Policy, last…
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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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, policy review and interview, the facility failed to execute Advance Directives (written documents that instructs health care providers of the decisions for specific medical treatment if a person was unable to speak or lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves) for one Resident (#318), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #318, the facility staff failed to ensure that Advanced Directives on a completed (prior to facility admission) Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form were honored per the Resident's wishes. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for MOLST, undated, indicated that Residents admitted with a completed MOLST form: -Upon admission the nurse will note the existence of the MOLST FORM and review the form for completeness. A completed MOLST is a legal medical order and is immediately actionable. -The MOLST should be copied, and the date of the copy written on the form. This copy and the original…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to implement an individualized plan of care for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #5 who was identified as being at nutritional risk, the facility staff failed to ensure that weekly weights were obtained per Physician order and the nutrition care plan. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Monitoring Program, revised 1/12, indicated: -There will be a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to monitoring resident weights. -All new admissions will be weighed on admission and at least weekly unless the Physician order states otherwise. -When transferring residents between units, resident weight will be re-weighed/reconciled in comparison to the previous weight whenever necessary. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm without rupture (AAA- an enlargement of the aorta [the main blood vessel that delivers blood to the body] at the level of the abdomen), Acute Kidney…
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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that required Physician orders were in place for the administration of Oxygen therapy for one Resident (#55), of three applicable residents receiving Oxygen, out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that Physician orders that included the concentration of Oxygen, the method of Oxygen delivery, the frequency of use and the indications for supplemental Oxygen were in place for Resident #55. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration, revised October 2010, indicated the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for safe Oxygen administration and included: -verify that there is a Physician's order for the procedure -review the Physician's orders or facility protocol for Oxygen administration -review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs Resident #55 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with a diagnosis of…
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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide accomodations to meet the specific dietary needs of one Resident (#318) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to accommodate the individualized request for Resident #318 to have his/her food items cut-up prior to receiving his/her meals, as the Resident had an arm injury that made it difficult to be independent with cutting food items. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Interdepartmental Notification of Diet (Including Changes and Reports), revised October 2008, indicated the following: -Nursing Services shall notify the Food Services Department of a resident's diet orders, including any changes in the resident's diet, meal service, and food preferences. -When a new resident is admitted , or a diet has been changed, the Nurse Supervisor shall ensure that the Food Services Department receives written notice of the diet order. Resident #318 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with a diagnosis of Displaced Fracture of Surgical Neck of…
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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the policy relative to Pneumococcal Vaccinations was revised and up to date with current Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations.The facility also failed to provide the Pneumococcal Vaccine for one Resident (#27) and assess two Residents (#74 and #83), out of five applicable residents, for the eligibility to receive or decline the Pneumococcal Vaccine, placing them at risk for contracting facility acquired Pneumonia. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1) ensure that staff administered the Pneumococcal Vaccine after consent was obtained and there was no history of previous Pneumococcal Vaccinations for Resident #27. 2) provide education on the Pneumococcal Vaccine, assess for eligibility and offer the vaccine based on the CDC recommendations for Residents #74 and #83. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccination, revised 11/25/19, indicated: -There were two types of…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAIN, ELAINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2025 |
| COAN, LEONORE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2024 |
| COLAIZZI, MARYANN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2025 |
| COLIN, KATHLEEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/04/2022 |
| FERGUSON, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2025 |
| HICKEY, PHILIP | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/28/2024 |
| KOZAK, KEVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/18/2018 |
| MANNILA, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/17/2022 |
| MCGOVERN, KEVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/24/2019 |
| MURPHY, ELIZABETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/21/2021 |
| MURPHY, JACQUELINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2025 |
| O'BRIEN, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/14/2022 |
| O'CONNOR, TARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/14/2022 |
| RIVARD, BRENDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/24/2019 |
| ROCHE, MARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/12/2017 |
| ROCHELEAU, H | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2024 |
| TOCE, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/14/2022 |
| TORKORNOO, ERIC | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/19/2023 |
| WEBB, CHARLES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2025 |
| TOTINO, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/09/2004 |
| ROSSANO, BRYAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| ZIMMONS, ERIKA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 64 rows in the source record cover these 22 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Massachusetts Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 225577. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-08, 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.