Caribou Rehab and Nursing Center

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

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.

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.

64.4% 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 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 65.5% 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 29 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 72 beds and averages 63.6 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.48 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 3.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.95 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.27 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Hcited before2025-11-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of reportable incident forms, clinical record review, facility policies, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #1, #3, and #4) were free from accident hazards and provided with supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents, resulting in 3 avoidable falls, with major injuries to 2 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to maintain the required extensive assistance for Resident #1 (R1) during peri-care, which caused R1, who had hemiplegia, to roll out of bed and sustain a displaced fracture of the right femoral neck upper thigh bone. Additionally, staff failed to ensure the correct and safe use of assistive devices for two other residents: staff failed to attach footrests during R3's wheelchair transport, causing R3 to fall forward and sustain a nasal bone fracture; and staff failed to use the mechanical lift (Hoyer) with the legs open, causing R4 to slip out onto the floor. Findings: 1. Review of R1's, Reportable…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure 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 that medications and medical equipment were stored properly by having an unlocked, unattended medication cart on 1 of 3 days (A wing medication cart) (6/30/25), and a treatment cart on 2 of 3 days of survey (7/1/25, and 7/2/25) allowing residents and unauthorized people access to medications, and medication equipment. Findings: 1. On 6/30/25 at 11:11 a.m., during a surveyor observation of a medication administration pass, the Certified Nursing Assistant-Medications (CNA-M) left the A wing medication cart in the dining/activity area of the locked Special Care Unit for residents with advanced cognitive impairment. The cart was left unattended and unlocked while the CNA-M left the cart to give medications to Resident #31 (R31) who was sitting two tables away from the unlocked cart. There were several residents in the dining/activity area, and a surveyor observed R214 sitting in a wheelchair, self-propel himself/herself to the front of the unlocked medication cart, stop, and place his/her hand on the lock, and a drawer…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on review of the facility's water management program and interview, the facility failed to fully develop/implement a water management program to prevent the growth and spread of legionella and other water-borne pathogens. Finding: On 7/2/25, a surveyor reviewed the facility's Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth and Spread in Buildings policy that was last reviewed by the facility on 10/14/24 and photos of areas where Legionella could grow were updated as needed. The program lacked evidence of measures to prevent the growth of opportunistic waterborne pathogens (also known as control measures), and how to monitor them. There was no evidence of testing protocols for control measures, including how and when this would be monitored, acceptable control limits, what interventions would be taken if control limits were found to be outside of range, and instances when water testing for legionella would be needed. On 7/2/25 at 11:04 a.m., during an interview with Maintenance, a surveyor confirmed this finding.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to promote care for all residents in a manner that maintains each resident's dignity and respect during resident transportation on 1 of 3 days of survey (7/1/25) and during meal services on 1 of 3 days of service (6/30/25). Findings: 1.On 7/1/25 at 11:00 a.m. in the hallway near the conference room (Bears Den) a staff member was observed pulling a resident backwards in their wheelchair, causing this residents feet to drag on the floor. On 7/1/25 at 11:35 a.m., during an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing, the surveyor confirmed that a staff member was pulling a resident backwards while in their wheelchair. 2. On 6/30/25 at 12:21 p.m., during the lunch service, a surveyor observed a staff member standing while assisting a resident to eat. This observation was observed and confirmed with Activities staff at the time of observation.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility's interdisciplinary team meeting (IDTM) group failed to determine if it was clinically appropriate for a resident to keep medications at bedside and self-administer a medicated powder topically for 1 of 1 Residents observed with a medicated powder at bedside (Resident #165 [R165]). Finding: Review of facility policy, Pharmaceutical Services, reviewed on 8/21 stated, there shall be no self-administration of medication unless the Interdisciplinary Team Meeting (IDTM) group decides that the resident is able to self-administer and store the drugs safely. Physician's order will be maintained. On 6/30/25 at 10:37 a.m., a surveyor observed a medicated antifungal foot powder (Desenex), on R165's nightstand. R165 stated that he/she applies this powder themself, as needed. On 6/30/25 at 11:04 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she will contact the doctor about the use of the Desenex because R165 has an order for miconazole (antifungal) for a rash. The DON stated that there had…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to formulate an advance directive regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (code status) was clear in the clinical record for 1 of 9 sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #214 [R214]). Finding: On 7/1/25, R214's clinical electronic health record (EHR) and paper health record were reviewed. R214's electronic clinical assessment in the EHR states, Code Status: FULLCODE, and the clinical paper health record, dated 6/23/25 Discharge Summary (from hospital) states, DNR/DNI [do not resuscitate/do not intubate] in regard to [his/her] CODE STATUS. On 7/1/25 at 2:05 p.m. a surveyor and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed R214's EHR and paper health record. The ADON stated that the code status in the EHR should read DNR/DNI, not full code. In an interview at this time with the ADON, a surveyor confirmed that the code status for R214, full code is not accurate on the EHR.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to review, revise and update a care plan for a newly discovered pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #19 [R19]). Finding: On 6/30/25, R19's clinical record was reviewed. Documentation indicated that R19 had a care plan with a revision date of 6/9/25 for alteration in skin. The care plan was not updated to address the new onset of a 3rd pressure ulcer as a stage III to the posterior of left foot. There was no evidence that the care plan was updated to reflect the new skin care needs. On 7/01/25 at 11:37 a.m., R19's care plan was reviewed with the Assistant Director of Nursing. The surveyor confirmed that the care plan does not reflect R19's current wound status and the care required for treatment.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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

  Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for use of sliding scale insulin (Resident #49 [R49]). Finding: On 7/1/25, R49's clinical record was reviewed and included a physician order to administer insulin if finger stick blood sugars (FSBS) were at a certain result. The order for FIASP FlexTouch (insulin), dated 4/29/25, directed staff to inject subcutaneously as per sliding scale: 3 units for 200-250 (FSBS result) 6 units for 251-300, 9 units for 301-350, 12 units for 351-400, 15 units for 401-450, and to call physician if over 451. R49's May Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated that on 5/22/25, R49's FSBS was 563. The TAR documentation indicated that R49 received 15 units of insulin. The clinical record lacked evidence of calling the physician and obtaining a physician order for insulin for a FSBS result greater than 451. R49's June TAR indicated that on 6/27/25, R49's FSBS was 288. The TAR documentation indicated that R49 received 3 units of insulin, instead of 6 units as ordered. On 7/1/25 at…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  Procure 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 and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by not storing food in a sanitary manner for 2 of 3 days of survey (6/30/25 and 7/2/25). Finding: On 6/30/25 at 9:03 a.m., during observation of the walk-in freezer, a surveyor and the Dietary Supervisor observed and confirmed the following: 1 container of Veggie Lasagna, open and exposed to the environment. 1 container of pasta with meat sauce, exposed to the environment, freezer burn observed. 1 pizza on a round cooking sheet plastic wrap partially peeled up and pizza crust exposed to the environment. 6 slices of raw meat sitting on a shelf and exposed to the environment. The Dietary Supervisor identified them as Philly chicken. 1 package of cauliflower, open and undated. 1 package of breaded chicken patties, open and undated. 1 package of pre-cooked chicken cubed, open and undated. 1 package of yellow beans, open and undated. 1 package of tater-tots, open and undated. 1 package of fish sticks, open and undated. On 7/2/25 at…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
  Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record reviews, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, and interviews, the facility failed to offer the updated Pneumococcal vaccination to 1 of 5 residents (Resident #24 [R24]). Finding: On 7/1/25, R24's clinical record was reviewed. The documentation in R24's clinical record indicated that R24 received the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) 13 in 2015 and the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine (PPV) 23 in 2017. The CDC recommendation was based on shared clinical decision-making, decide whether to administer one dose of PCV20 or PCV21 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose. On 7/1/25 at 9:14 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated there was no evidence of offering the PCV20 to R24. On 7/2/25 at 10:00 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist stated that they use the CDC recommendations for administering the pneumococcal vaccines.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review, review of the facility incident report, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to monitor an unlocked and/or non-alarmed door to prevent a resident identified as an elopement risk from leaving the building unnoticed. A staff member, who was informed by a visitor, told staff she saw a resident outside, unattended. The failure to have monitoring of unlocked, and/or non-alarmed doors, resulted in an avoidable elopement for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for elopement risk (Resident # 1 [R1]). Finding: R1 was admitted to the facility in February 2025 with a diagnosis of Dementia. R1 was identified as an elopement risk and wears a wander guard alert (a safety device that alarms if resident wanders too close to a door). Review of R1's Reportable Incident Form dated 5/26/25 indicates that on 5/25/25 at approximately 3:15 p.m., R1 was outside for thirty-three minutes and he/she was sitting in a wheelchair near the gazebo on the lawn across the employee parking lot. Another residents family member saw him/her outside .R1 was wearing a wander guard, but the door…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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 ME