Maine Veterans Home - Caribou
163 Van Buren Rd Suite 2, Caribou, ME 04736 · Non profit - Other · 40 certified beds · (207) 498-6074 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $42,320 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 19.6% | 24.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.2% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.1% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.7% | 2.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 13.3% | 11.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.9% | 25.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.9% | 17.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.3% | 95.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.4% | 29.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.1% | 20.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 1.45 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.57 | 2.01 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
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 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 40 beds and averages 36.3 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 4 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 5.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.55 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.53 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.34 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.76 to 1.03 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-02-05 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 notify the physician of significant change in condition for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Abuse [Resident #16 (R16)]. This failure delayed physician intervention that resulted in harm to R16 when R16 had requested to go to the hospital on 1/27/26 while experiencing respiratory distress which included needing increased supplemental oxygen above physician order, increased anxiety and restlessness which required frequent staff intervention and redirection. The Medical Provider was not notified of the change in condition until 1/29/26. Findings: R16 is a [AGE] year-old resident with diagnoses to include, but not limited to, Congestive Heart Failure Systolic Acute, Chronic Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, Pulmonary Hypertension, Chronic Respiratory Failure and a Right Humerus Fracture. On 2/5/26, review of R16's clinical record indicated the following:-R16's oxygen order, start date 12/30/25, directed staff to administer oxygen (O2) continuously up to 5 Liters…
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 · E2026-02-05 · 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
Based on observations, facility policy reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control Program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection by failing to ensure staff wore the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) in enhanced barrier precaution and contact precaution rooms and failing to ensure staff discarded a medication pill after if fell on top of the medication cart on 3 of 4 days of survey (2/2, 2/4 and 2/5/26). Findings: The facility policy, Enhanced Barrier Precautions indicates that Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) expands the use of PPE beyond situations in which exposure to blood and bodily fluids is anticipated, and refers to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of [Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs)] to staff hands and clothing. 1. On 2/2/26 at 1:22 p.m., a surveyor observed an EBP sign outside R41's room. R41 was observed lying in bed while working with Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) and Occupational Therapy…
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 · D2026-02-05 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement the written policy and procedures for preventing the abuse and neglect of residents after a resident reported an allegation of abuse [Resident #41 (R41)]. This had the potential to affect all residents.Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Property, dated November 19, 2025, states the following:Under the 5.4 Identification/Detection heading:- 5.4.2.1 Resident complaints of abuse.- 5.4.2.4 Unexplained bruises or other injuries- Resident's apparent fear of another person, whether staff, resident or visitor.- Resident refusal to be with a specific personUnder the 5.6 Protection heading:- 5.6.1 Staff will intervene immediately to protect the resident(s) in any situation of actual or potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment.- 5.6.2 If the person accused of the abuse is an employee, that person will be suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation.Under the 5.7 Reporting and Response heading:- 5.7.1 Staff members will be expected to report…
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 before2026-02-05 · 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care as order by the Provider for 2 of 16 residents reviewed on survey [Resident #61 [R16] and R5).Findings: 1. On 2/2/26 at 12:04 p.m., during a dining observation, a surveyor observed R5 sitting at a table in the dining room wearing nasal cannula tubing connected to an empty oxygen tank. At this time the surveyor observed and confirmed with RN2 that R5's portable oxygen tank was empty. RN2 stated R5 is supposed to be on 2 Liters (L) oxygen continuously. 2. On 2/5/25, clinical record review indicated R16 had orders, dated 12/30/25, Administer [oxygen (O2)] Therapy [continuously/daily (cont/daily)] up to 5 [Liter Per Minute (LPM)], nasal cannula continuous to keep O2 [greater than (>)] 88%, and Albuterol Sulfate (2.5 [milligrams (MG)]/3 [milliliters (ML)]) 0.083% Nebulization Solution Dose: (3ml) inhalation three times a day [as needed (PRN)] . For Dyspnea (difficult or labored breathing). Review of R16's Treatment Administration Record indicated from 2/26/26 through 1/29/26 R16 received continuous…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain the dignity of 1 resident (Resident #29 [R29]) related to urinary collection bags during 2 of 3 days of survey (1/7/25 and 1/8/25). Findings: R29's care plan under Self Care Deficit included an approach, dated 5/25/23, references that R29 has a Foley Catheter and to cover bag to maintain dignity when out of room. 1. On 1/6/25 at 12:15 p.m. two surveyors observed R29's Foley catheter bag under his/her Tilt in Space wheelchair while R29 was in the dining room at lunch time. The blue covering of the Foley Catheter bag was riding up bottom to top and urine was visible at the bottom of the bag. 2. On 1/7/25 at 11:35 p.m. two surveyors observed R29's Foley catheter bag under his/her Tilt in Space wheelchair while resident was in the doorway of his/her room, facing the hallway. The blue covering of the Foley Catheter bag was riding up from the bottom to the top and urine was visible at the bottom of the bag. 3. On 1/7/24 11:46 p.m., a surveyor observed R29 in the dining room at lunch time sitting in…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident's choice in bathing was being followed for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for Choices (Resident #30 [R30]). Finding: On 1/6/25 at 9:30 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, R30 stated that he/she does not get their shower every week, stating that it is more like once a month that they are able to go into the shower. R30 stated that staff are saying they just don't have time to do showers. Upon review of the scheduled whirlpool list R30 is scheduled on Monday. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation shows that R30 has received 2 showers since November 1st, 2024, to current day (1/7/25). Documentation shows that R30 received a shower on 11/11/24 and 12/9/24 supporting R30's statement of only receiving a shower once a month. R30 was scheduled to receive his/her shower on 1/6/25 during this survey, there is no evidence that R30 received a shower. During an observation of the whirlpool and shower room with a CNA there was no evidence showing that the shower/whirlpool room was used (floors in…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure a care plan was resident centered, updated, and implemented for 2 of 14 residents reviewed on survey (Resident #6 [R6] and [R33]). Findings: 1. Clinical record review indicated R6 transitioned to hospice level of care on 12/13/24. The care plan identified the following: -A care area identified on 1/5/24 and revised on 12/31/24, indicated the Potential for Constipation. The approach indicated Keep fluids in reach and encourage fluid intake. -A care area identified on 1/5/24 and revised on 12/31/24, indicated the Potential for Fluid volume [deficit] manifested by Dry mucous membranes. The approaches listed included Encourage fluid intake and Offer fluids frequently, Keep fluids within reach. - A care area last revised on 12/31/24, identified verbally and physically disruptive behaviors related to dementia, manifested by outbursts and agitation. Approach for this care area, indicated Provide auditory or tactile stimulation for excess vocalization…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to address significant weight loss for 1 of 1 sampled residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #33 [R33]). Finding: On 1/8/25, a clinical record review was done for R33. The record indicated R3 was admitted on [DATE]. On 9/23/24 the provider ordered 240 milliliters (ml) of House Supplement Carnation Instant Breakfast (CIB) to be given at breakfast, lunch and dinner. R33's weights were as follows: - On 9/7/24, R33 weighed 98.6 pounds (lbs). - On 10/3/24, R33 weighed 98.4 lbs. -On 11/4/24, R33 weighed 87.6 lbs. -On 12/2/24, R33 weighed 86.6 lbs. -On 1/1/25, R33 weighed 86.6 lbs. R33 had a 12.17 percent weight loss in less than 6 months. On 10/26/24 at 1:13 p.m., a dietary note indicated the resident had an involuntary 5 percent weight loss. A goal was set to have no weight loss and continue to maintain a weight of 95 lbs to 105 lbs for three months. On 12/13/24 at 8:36 a.m., the dietary note identified alteration in nutrition and change the goal to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-08 · 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
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to have complete orders that contained the specific amount of liters per minute (LPM) for the use of oxygen and the facility failed to ensure that one oxygen concentrator was operated and maintained per manufacturer's directions for 2 of 3 residents reviewed with oxygen (Resident #19 [R19 and R1]). Findings: 1. On 1/6/24 at 12:00 p.m. R19 was in the dining room using his/her oxygen concentrator with a flow rate of 3 liters using a nasal cannula. The surveyor observed that the oxygen concentrator was missing the side filter. A surveyor asked RN #1 to observe the oxygen concentrator with the surveyor and acknowledged the side filter was missing. On 1/7/25 at 8:50 a.m. an observation of R19's oxygen concentrator was observed and showed the side filter was still missing. At this time the surveyor confirmed the side filter was missing with the RN MDS Coordinator. The RN MDS Coordinator cut a filter to replace the missing side filter after the observation was made. On 1/7/25 during a review of the manufacturer's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-06 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 a review of a Facility Reportable Incident Form, the facility's internal investigations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 1 sampled resident had the right to refuse care when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) used body contact (physical restraint) that limited a residents voluntary movement. (Resident #30 [R30]) Finding: R30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include unspecified dementia with agitation, insomnia, Alzheimer's disease, unspecified injury of head, difficulty in walking. R30's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], was coded for Section C, Cognitive Patterns, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 2, indicating cognitive impairment. The facility reported that a CNA was observed by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) physically restraining R30 by placing both of R30's arms across his/her chest and held them there until incontinence care was completed. The LPN assisted with the incontinence care while the CNA held…
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 · D2023-12-06 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment within 14 days after a resident experienced a significant change of condition when hospice services were discontinued for 1 of 2 sampled residents who had received hospice services (Resident #19 [R19]). Finding: On 12/4/23, during a review of R19's clinical record, a surveyor noted a hospice note discontinuing hospice services; however, the clinical record, which included Physician Orders, signed on 11/2/23 indicated that the resident was still receiving hospice services. On 12/4/23 at approximately 3:00 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor, Registered Nurse (RN) stated that R19 had improved and no longer qualified for hospice services (which were initiated on 8/8/23 and discontinued on 11/8/23). There was no comprehensive MDS assessment, that addressed Hospice services, completed within 14 days of the cessation of hospice services on 11/8/23 . In an interview on 12/4/23 at approximately 3:00 p.m. with RN, and on 12/5/23 at 3:34 p.m. with the Director 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 · D2023-12-06 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and implemented within 48 hours that included the problems, interventions, and initial goals needed to provide minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for 2 of 2 newly admitted residents that were reviewed for baseline care plans. (Resident [R] 37 and R2). Findings: 1. On 12/5/23, R37's clinical record was reviewed and indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R37's discharge summary from the hospital included information that the resident had a Foley catheter, was a diabetic, on a psychotropic medication Trazodone, on medication for pain, and needed therapy evaluations. Review of the baseline care plan, developed within 48 hours from admission, only included problems and/or interventions on bowel elimination and that the resident had dentures. On 12/5/23 at 12:52 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), a surveyor confirmed this finding. 2.…
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 · B2026-02-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a clinical record contacted accurate and complete information for 3 of 17 sampled residents (Resident #41 [R41], R5, and R16).Findings: 1. On 2/5/26 at 12:08 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor and the Director of Nursing Services (DON), R41's clinical record was reviewed. The DON confirmed R41 was admitted with an indwelling foley catheter and that the nurse documentation, dated 1/28/26 at 1:02 a.m., stating Resident does not have an indwelling catheter in place at present. Sudden onset of incontinence was inaccurately documented. At this time the surveyor confirmed the above finding with the DON. 2. On 2/4/25, R5's clinical record was reviewed and indicated that R5 had a pressure injury to the right Achilles heel according to physician orders dated 12/2/25 and 12/16/25. Review of the weekly wound documentation for 1/27/26 contained documentation that this was a healing stage 2 to the back of the left ankle/Achilles and the care plan, dated 2/2/26, also indicated the pressure was on the left Achilles heel.…
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 · B2023-12-06 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to the resident representative in writing for the reason of a transfer/discharge from the facility for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident [R] 13, R37). Findings: 1. On 12/4/23, R13's clinical record was reviewed which indicated that the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 12/5/23 at 1:16 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the Administrator was not able to provide evidence that the Resident Representative received a written copy of the transfer/discharge notice. 2. On 12/4/23, R37's clinical record was reviewed which indicated that the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 12/5/23 at 1:16 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the Administrator was not able to provide evidence that the Resident Representative received a written copy of the transfer/discharge notice.
“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
$42,320 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $42,320 — penalty dated 2026-02-05
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-03-17 for 3 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MAINE VETERANS' HOME — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARMSTRONG, ANGELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/20/2024 |
| BRAWN, CHRISTINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/20/2024 |
| BURR, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/18/2021 |
| COLLINS, SAMUEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/06/2022 |
| GARDNER, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/06/2022 |
| GENEST, EMIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/27/2020 |
| JACKSON, DIANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/09/2022 |
| LAGACE, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/13/2020 |
| MILLER, BRIDGET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/20/2024 |
| POOLER, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/20/2024 |
| RICHMOND, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/26/2018 |
| SANPEDRO, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| SCHWETZ, JULIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/13/2020 |
| BROOKS, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2015 |
| GAGNON, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/18/2022 |
| KLAWITTER, BRAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/16/2024 |
| MAINE VETERANS' HOME | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/31/2009 |
| ARMSTRONG, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/16/2023 |
| GRAHAM, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| MEADER, MELANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/30/2023 |
| WELCH, KATHERINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/14/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 21 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $208K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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.
What families pay in ME
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 Maine 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 205151. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-05, 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.