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

Norway Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLC

29 Marion Ave, Norway, ME 04268 · For profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (207) 743-7075 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (207) 743-7075 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (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
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
181 Main St · (207) 743-5933 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.5 mi
53 Paris St · (207) 744-0712 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Hannaford0.7 mi
1603 Main St · (207) 743-2522 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Longley Park Square · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased3.9%24.4%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.5%5.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.1%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.2%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms15.6%11.6%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.0%4.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.7%25.6%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication7.8%17.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.0%4.3%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.2%29.2%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.4%20.2%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.0%74.5%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.6%20.8%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.2%16.1%12.0%typical

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.

52.5% 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 99 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
67.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.50U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.21hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.26hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 67.7% 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 62 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 80% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF52.5%CMS range 42.9–59.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.2%CMS range 6.4–14.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge67.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge59.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge64.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified93.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting88.9%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.6%CMS range 4.3–12.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.201.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

1.36
RN hours/ resident / day
0.19
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.76
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.93
RN hoursweekends
34.1%
Total nursing turnover
23.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 42 beds and averages 38.2 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 4.31 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.36 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.76 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 3.85 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.50 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.54 to 0.93 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-24)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2023-02-15)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Potential for harm · F2025-04-24 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespread
    Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record reviews, interviews, and the Payroll Based Journal Report (PPJ), the facility failed to ensure sufficient direct care staff were scheduled and on duty to meet the needs of residents for 1 of 4 quarters reviewed for weekend staffing (9/1/24 through 12/31/24). Findings: Review of Center for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) PPJ Report revealed the facility triggered for low weekend staffing during the first quarter (10/1/24 through 12/31/24). During a review of first quarter weekend staffing with scheduler on 4/24/25 at 12:05 p.m., the scheduler confirmed the facility was not adequately staffed for 7 of 39 days reviewed. During a review of the daily staffing sheets with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/24/25 at 1:05 p.m., the above was confirmed. At this time DON stated she would have daily punches obtained for the days in question. The daily punches were not obtained by the end of survey.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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, interview, and review of the Culinary Services: Storage of Food & Supplies Policy and Procedure, revised 2/2022, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner for a hood, ceiling lights, a ceiling vent, and the walk-in refrigerator door; and failed to ensure foods were labeled and dated in a walk-in freezer for 1 of 1 kitchen tour for 1 of 1 day of survey (4/22/25). Findings: The facility's Culinary Services: Storage of Food & Supplies Policy and Procedure, revised 2/2022, noted: 2. Labeling and rotating food supply: a. Food products that are opened and not completely used or transferred from its original package to another storage container or prepared at the facility and stored should be labeled as to its contents and used by dates. 4. Food removed from its original container must be labeled with the common name of the food. On 4/22/25 from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., an initial kitchen tour was conducted with the Food Service Director in which the following findings were observed: > The hood over the dish washing machine…

    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 · E2025-04-24 · tag F0940 — failed to train staff — pattern
    Develop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective training program for nursing staff contracted through the Clipboard Application (App), and NURSA App in the areas of dementia care, resident rights, neglect training by failing to ensure contracted Clipboard/NURSA Professionals (Users) completed training prior to independently providing services to residents for 3 of 3 contracted staff reviewed during a complaint investigation.( Staff #1,# 2, & # 4). Findings: Review of the Clipboard app Terms of Service Agreement last updated 10/9/23 states, Clipboard operates an online, marketplace, accessed through the Site, that allows third-party clients (each, a Client) to post open shifts at facilities (each, a Facility), and allows independent contractor professionals (each, a Professional) to view and sign up to work such shifts if they so choose. Under the subheading 2.1 CLIPBOARD'S ROLE AS A MARKETPLACE states, Clipboard merely makes the Site and Services available to enable Professionals and Clients to find and transact directly with each…

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

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (Resident #26). Findings: On 4/22/25 at 9:32 a.m., 4/23/25 at 12:09 p.m., and 4/23/25 at 2:20 p.m., Resident #26 was observed to have notable buildup on his/her bottom teeth. During an interview with Resident #26 representative stated [Resident #26] bottom teeth have build up on them, and resident can't brush them independently and further stated [Resident #26] used to insist on brushing their teeth when they were young, and it would bother resident to not have them clean. Review of Resident 26's care plan, updated 3/16/25 states: Personal Hygiene: partial/moderate assistance, helper provides less than half the effort. Oral Hygiene: set up/clean up assistance, helper provides set up/clean up assistance, . Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 of 15 indicating he/she…

    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 · D2025-04-24 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain provider orders for the maintenance and monitoring of a pacemaker. In addition, the facility failed to initiate goals and interventions necessary for the presence of a pacemaker for 1 of 13 care plans (Resident #34). Findings: Resident #34 was admitted in 2/25 and has a diagnoses to include chronic heart failure, ischemic cardiomyopathy, hypertensive heart disease, and type II diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #35's clinical record revealed appointment CM Heart 4/10/25 at 1:00 p.m. Review of Resident #34's clinical record NSG Admission/readmission Evaluation originally dated 2/20/25 section: Devices and treatments (care profile) is blank in subsection: pacemaker . Review of clinical record [[Hospital] Consultation Note] dated 2/14/25 revealed Resident #35 had a past medical history of presence of combination internal cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker. Review of Resident #34's signed provider orders for April 2025 lacked evidence…

    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 · Dcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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, interviews, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection related to respiratory care for 1of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #34). Findings: On 4/22/25 at 10:24 a.m., and 4/23/35 at 7:35 a.m., observations of Resident #34's nebulizer machine was observed on top of dresser with tubing and mask attached and resting on top of the nebulizer and not in a bag. Review of Resident #34's orders active for April 2025 revealed order for Ipratropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML3 ml inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for Wheezing or dyspnea; flu Lung sounds pre and post nebulizer treatment: C=Clear, D=Diminished W=Wheeze, bCR=Crackles R=Rhonchib Report abnormal lung sounds to RN for assessment. Document total min spent for nebulizer TX. Document Respiratory Rate before and after TX. Review of Resident #34's TAR dated April 2025 revealed nebulizer was last used 4/9/25. On 4/23/25 at 12:25 p.m., during an observation of Resident #34, Registered…

    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 · Dcited before2023-02-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 interview the facility failed to provide respiratory services as directed by physician orders related to nebulizer administration with monitoring for 1 of 3 residents reviewed who received nebulizer medications (Resident #27). Findings: On 2/13/22 at 12:57 p.m., observation of Resident #27 to have a nebulizer machine with tubing and face mask on the bed next to the pillow. Review of the medical record stated Resident #27 was admitted with acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory bronchiolitis interstitial lung disease, panlobular emphysema and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Physician orders dated, 2/2/23 for Ipratropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 MG (milligram)/3ML (milliliter), 3 ml inhale orally four times a day for SOB (shortness of breath) or Wheezing with instructions for nursing to monitor Lung sounds pre and post nebulizer treatment: C=Clear, D=Diminished W=Wheeze, CR=Crackles R=Rhonchi. Report abnormal lung sounds to RN for assessment. Document total min spent for nebulizer TX…

    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 · E2021-06-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to adequately provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain the building in good repair and sanitary conditions on 1 of 2 wings ( C wing), the laundry room, the handicap bathroom, and the employee/public bathroom for 1 of 1 Environmental tours (6/10/2021). Findings: On 6/10/2021 from 8:50 a.m. to 9:15 a.m., a surveyor and the Maintenance Director conducted an tour of the facility in which the following findings were observed: C Wing: > Six(6) hallway ceiling vents were visibly dusty/dirty. > Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]- The floor was dirty around the base of the toilet. > Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]- The floor was dirty around the base of the toilet and along the edge of the walls. > Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]- The floor was dirty around the base of the toilet. > Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]- The floor was dirty around the base of the toilet. The privacy curtain, closest to the window, was in disrepair. > Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]-…

    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 · Ecited before2021-06-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner for the food disposal, the wall air conditioner, the wall exhaust fan, the floors, and failed to label and date foods in the walk-in freezer for 1 of 1 kitchen tours on 1 of 3 days of survey. (6/7/2021) Findings: On 06/07/2021 between 6:20 p.m. and 6:55 p.m., during the kitchen tour, a surveyor and the Food Service Director observed the following: > The food disposal unit had dried liquid splatter on it. > The wall air conditioning unit was dusty/dirty. > The wall exhaust fan was dirty/dusty. > The dry goods storage room floor had dirt/debris and trash on it and under the shelving. > The walk-in freezer had an open unlabeled and undated bag of chicken strips, an unlabeled and undated bag of meat patties, and the floor had dirt/debris and trash on it under the shelving. On 06/07/2021 at 6:55 p.m., the Food Service Director confirmed the findings.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-06-10 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the garbage storage area in a condition to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests on 2 of 4 days of survey. (6/7/2021 and 6/10/2021) Findings: 1. On 6/7/2021 at 6:20 pm, a surveyor and the Food Service Director observed the trash dumpster to have the left side door and the right side door open, exposing garbage bags. Additionally, there were used nursing gloves, papers, cigarette butts, old packing tape, and plastic cup lids on the ground around the dumpster. On 6/7/2021 at 6:30 pm, the Food Service Director confirmed the findings. 2. On 6/10/2021 at 8:30 a.m., a surveyor and the Food Service Director observed the trash dumpster to have the left side door open, exposing garbage bags. On 6/10/2021 at 8:30 a.m., the Food Service Director confirmed the findings.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES — 42 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.2+1.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.1+0.9 vs chain
The other 41 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Brentwood Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLCYarmouth, ME 1 of 5The Pines At Utica Center For Nursing And RehabUtica, NY 2 of 5Beacon Brook Center For Health & RehabilitationNaugatuck, CT 2 of 5Bloomfield Center For Nursing & RehabilitationBloomfield, CT 2 of 5Eastside Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLCBangor, ME 2 of 5Kennebunk Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLCKennebunk, ME 2 of 5Ludlowe Center For Health & RehabilitationFairfield, CT 2 of 5Mansfield Center For Nursing And RehabilitationStorrs Mansfield, CT 2 of 5Montowese Center For Health & RehabilitationNorth Haven, CT 2 of 5Riverside Health & Rehabilitation CenterEast Hartford, CT 2 of 5Shady Knoll Center For Health & RehabilitationSeymour, CT 2 of 5Summit At Plantsville Center For Health & RehabiliPlantsville, CT 2 of 5The Pines At Catskill Center For Nursing & RehabCatskill, NY 2 of 5The Pines At Glens Falls Ctr For Nursing & RehabGlens Falls, NY 3 of 5Augusta Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLCAugusta, ME 3 of 5Cambridge Health And Rehabilitation CenterFairfield, CT 3 of 5Evergreen Center For Health & RehabilitationStafford Springs, CT 3 of 5Glastonbury Center For Health & RehabilitationGlastonbury, CT 3 of 5Hebrew Center For Health And RehabilitationWest Hartford, CT 3 of 5Laurel Ridge Center For Health & RehabilitationRidgefield, CT 3 of 5Maefair Center For Health & RehabilitationTrumbull, CT 3 of 5Marlborough Health & Rehabilitation CenterMarlborough, CT 3 of 5Reservoir Center For Health & Rehabilitation, TheMarlborough, MA 3 of 5Water's Edge Center For Health & RehabilitationMiddletown, CT 3 of 5Winship Green Center for Health & Rehab, LLCBath, ME 4 of 5Bethel Health Care CenterBethel, CT 4 of 5Brewer Center For Health & Rehabilitation, LLCBrewer, ME 4 of 5Dover Center For Health & RehabilitationDover, NH 4 of 5Huntington Hills Center for Health and RehabilitatMelville, NY 4 of 5Pines At Bristol For Nursing & Rehabilitation, TheBristol, CT 4 of 5Sharon Center For Health & RehabilitationSharon, CT 4 of 5Stone Bridge Center For Health & RehabilitationNewtown, CT 4 of 5The Pines At Poughkeepsie Ctr For Nursing & RehabPoughkeepsie, NY 4 of 5The Pines at Rutland Center for Nursing & RehabiliRutland, VT 4 of 5Village Crest Center For Health & RehabilitationNew Milford, CT 5 of 5Belair Care Center IncBellmore, NY 5 of 5Maple View Health & Rehabilitation CenterRocky Hill, CT 5 of 5Milford Health And Rehabilitation CenterMilford, CT 5 of 5Pine Heights at Brattleboro Center for Nursing & RBrattleboro, VT 5 of 5Regency House Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterWallingford, CT

Showing 40 of 41; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
VK HEALTH FACILITIES LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
MARVIN OSTREICHER FAMILY TRUST 2012OrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
MERIDIAN CAPITAL FOUNDATIONOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
MSO ASSOCIATES LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
SUSAN OSTREICHER FAMILY TRUST 2012OrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
VENTAS NHV FUNDOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
BOKOW, BARRYIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
DAVID, ALBERTIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
GEFFNER, IRAIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
GLUCK, ROBERTIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
LOBELL, JONAHIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
LOWINGER, BENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
LOWINGER, JOSEPHIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
OSTREICHER, DAVIDIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
OSTREICHER, MARCIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
OSTREICHER, MARVINIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
OSTREICHER, SUSANIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
SCHOOR, KALMANIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
SHAYA-MOGRABY, MOSHEIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
STEG, YITZCHOKIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
WEINSTOCK, ABRAHAMIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/28/2013
GILMARTIN, THOMASIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2016
ROSEBERRY, NATHANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/30/2025
VENTURA, JOSEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
BARRY BOKOW 2012 FAMILY TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
BPB VENTURES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
CEDAR HILL NG TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025
IMPACT HEALTH PCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
JUNIPER NG TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
OAK DRIVE NG TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025
PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
PREFERRED THERAPY SOLUTIONS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
ROLLING HILL NG TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025
ALMEIDA, ELIZABETHIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2013
BOKOW, MICHAELIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 09/30/2015
LOPIANSKY, REBECCAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025
STEG, SHAYNAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/14/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 48 rows in the source record cover these 38 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.

16 organizational owners 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.

$7.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-5.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$984K
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 30%Medicare 8%Other / private 62%

This home reported $984K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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

$305per resident / day
operating cost
$9,267per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$289per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in ME

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Maine Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Maine
$13,976/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$14,904/mo
Nursing home (private)
$8,205/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 205097. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next