Bedford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
480 Donald Street, Bedford, NH 03110 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 102 certified beds · (603) 627-4147 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $16,153 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-17)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.9% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.6% | 13.7% | 6.5% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.6% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.9% | 19.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.0% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.8% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 83.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.8% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.3% | 13.4% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 1.87 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.0% 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 157 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.4% 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 110 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 54.0%CMS range 46.5–60.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.5–14.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 56.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 53.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 54.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.9–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 102 beds and averages 94.2 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.93 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.58 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.04 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-12-17 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in accordance with the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines and/or the facility's policy for 1 of 3 closed records reviewed. (Resident identifier is #119.)Findings include:Review on [DATE] of Resident #119's progress notes revealed the following nurse's note dated [DATE] at 6:43 a.m., written by Staff A (Registered Nurse), This writer told by 11-7 nurse [Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse] that resident had passed away and needed to be pronounced. This writer found no bp [blood pressure], no apical [apical pulse], no respirations present, pupils fixed. Pronounced by this writer at 0640 [6:40 a.m.]. A nurse's note dated, [DATE] at 7:08 a.m., written by Staff A, revealed Immediately after pronouncing this writer learned resident full code CPR initiated,911 called. Further review of nursing progress notes revealed no notes from Staff B about Resident #119 passing away. Review on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-17 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident's advance directives were accurately reflected for 3 residents in a final sample of 32 residents. (Resident identifiers are #18, #70 and #92.)Findings include:Interview on [DATE] with Staff E (Regional Clinical Nurse) revealed that the facility places a green dot on the spine of paper charts to indicate a Full Code status (meaning perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation)). Resident #70 Review on [DATE] of Resident #70's electronic medical record revealed a resident demographic banner that indicated a code status of Full Code. Further review revealed a physician's order dated [DATE] for a Full Code. Review on [DATE] of Resident #70's paper chart revealed there was a green dot on the outside spine of the book. Further review revealed a green Full Code sheet and a Portable Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (P-DNR) Order form that was signed and dated by the provider on [DATE]. Review on [DATE] of Resident #70'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 · D2025-12-17 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for individuals who required greater than 30 days of facilities services for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR in a final survey sample of 24. (Resident identifiers are #20 and #48.)Findings include:Resident #48 Review on 12/15/25 of Resident #48's medical record revealed an admission date of 1/10/25 and a diagnosis of Traumatic Brain Injury. Review on 12/15/25 of Resident #48's PASARR Level 1 screen form, dated 1/8/25, revealed Section 6. Exemption/Exclusion, Hospital Discharge Exemption was signed by a provider on 1/24/25. Further review of this section revealed .If the NF [Nursing Facility] stay is 30 days or longer, a new PASARR screen and resident review must be performed with in 40 calendar days of admission . Interview on 12/17/25 at approximately 8:23 a.m. with Staff J (Social Services) confirmed that Resident #48 had remained at the nursing facility past 30 days and a PASARR Level 1 screen had not been done within 40 calendar…
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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders for 1 of 3 closed records reviewed. (Resident identifier is #119.)Findings include:Standard: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2021. Page 614 .It is essential to verify the accuracy of every medication you give to your patients with the patient's order. If the medication order is incomplete, incorrect, or inappropriate, or if there is a discrepancy between the original order and the information on the MAR [Medication Administration Record]. consult with the health care provider. Do not give a medication until you are certain that you can follow the seven rights of medication administration . Page 672 .seven rights of medication administration include right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, right time, right documentation and right indication .Review on 12/16/25 of Resident #119's physician orders, revealed the following…
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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications securely in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 2 units observed.Findings include:Observation on 12/15/25 at approximately 8:00 a.m. of the first floor nurses' station revealed the following medication cards laying on the counter for Resident #119:Diltiazem HCI Coated Beads 240 Milligrams (MG) with 6 capsules remaining.Eliquis Oral Tablet 5 MG with 14 tablets remaining.Lasix Oral Tablet 40 MG with 8 tablets remaining.Lasix Oral Tablet 40 MG with 1 tablet remaining.Lasix Oral Tablet 20 MG with 12 tablets remaining.Letrozole Oral tablets 2.5 MG with 6 tablets remaining.Pantoprazole Sodium Oral Tablet Delayed Release 40 MG with 6 capsules remaining.Potassium Chloride Extended Release Tablet 20 Milliequivalent (MEQ) with 13 tablets remaining.Potassium Chloride Extended Release Tablet 20 Milliequivalent (MEQ) with 12 tablets remaining.Sotalol HCI Oral Tablet 120 MG with 18 tablets remaining.Further observation revealed the following the nurses' station entrance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control policies and standards for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for catheters. (Resident identifier are #2 and #114.)Findings include:Resident #114Observation on 12/15/25 at 9:57 a.m. at the 300's hallway revealed that Resident #114 had a contact precaution sign posted outside of the door.Interview on 12/15/25 at 9:57 a.m. with Staff H (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that Resident #114 was on contact precaution for a Clostridium Difficile (C-diff) infection. Review on 12/15/25 of Resident #114's care plan revealed a contact precautions for C-diff infection care plan, dated 12/15/25, with the following interventions: Place resident in a private room with contact precautions. Care equipment should be appropriately cleaned, disinfected or sterilized according to facility protocol. Further review revealed a C-diff infection care plan, dated 12/15/25, with an intervention to disinfect all equipment used…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from a medication cart in 1 of 3 medication carts observed. Findings include: Observation on 10/1/24 at approximately 8:20 a.m. revealed a bottle of Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005% with an open date of 8/9/24. Review on 10/1/24 of manufacturers instructions on package revealed: .Opened bottle may be stored at room temperature up to 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) for 6 weeks . Interview on 10/1/24 at approximately 8:25 a.m. with Staff B (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed the above findings and that the above medication was expired and currently in use. Review on 10/3/2024 of facility policy titled, Medication Storage, revised 4/16/24 revealed: . 8. Unused Medications: The pharmacy and all medication rooms are routinely inspected by the consultant pharmacist for discontinued, outdated, defective, or deteriorated medications with worn, illegible, or missing labels. These medications are destroyed in accordance with our…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food and dishware were stored in accordance to professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Findings include: Observation on 10/1/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff H (Food Service Director) of the facility kitchen revealed a box of zucchini and yellow squash that were soft, covered with a clear slime-like substance, clusters of white fuzzy substance, and black discoloration that were stored in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator. Further observation revealed a stack of pre-sliced hard yellow cheese half covered with saran wrap with no date. Interview on 10/1/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff H confirmed the above finding. Observation on 10/2/24 at approximately 8:40 a.m. with Staff H in the kitchen revealed a dietary aide stacked wet cups and stored them in a bin to air-dry. A few minutes later, another dietary aide took the same stack of wet cups and moved them to the main dining room for use. Interview on 10/2/24 at approximately 8:40 a.m. with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dressing changes in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #37). Findings include: Observation on 12/15/23 at approximately 10:10 a.m. of Resident #37's pressure ulcer dressing changes in his/her room with Staff B (Nurse Unit Manager) revealed that during the dressing change both the door and curtain remained open. A housekeeper entered the room during the dressing change. Interview on 12/15/23 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above findings. Review on 12/15/23 of the facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, Revised on 11/23/23 revealed: Compliance Guidance 1. All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights 12. Maintain resident privacy
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's physician when medications were unavailable for 1 resident in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #281). Findings include: Resident #281 Review on 12/14/2023 of Resident #281 hospital discharge medication list, dated 12/6/2023, revealed an order for Clobazam (used for the treatment of seizures) 10 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth two times per day. Further review revealed that Resident #281 received Clobazam prior to leaving the hospital at 8:46 a.m. on 12/6/2023. Review on 12/14/2023 of Resident #281's December Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that Resident #281 did not receive a second dose of Clobazam on 12/6/23 and received one dose on 12/7/23 at 8:00 p.m. Review on 12/14/2023 of Resident #281's progress note, dated 12/6/2023, revealed that Clobazam had not been received from the pharmacy. Interview on 12/14/2023 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff D (Director of Nursing) revealed that when a medication is unavailable, it…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physicians orders for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for general skin conditions in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #6). Findings Include: Observation on 12/13/23 at approximately 9:30 a.m. of Resident #6's right hand revealed a mepiplex dressing dated 12/8/23. Review on 12/13/23 of Resident #6's medical record revealed the following physician's order: Skin tear top of right hand, cleanse with NS [normal saline] apply Vaseline, gauze, assure steri strips are intact then cover with Tegaderm, change QOD [every other day] and prn [as needed] every evening shift every other day, Start Date 12/3/23. Interview on 12/14/23 at approximately 1:15 p.m with Staff B (Nurse Unit Manager) confirmed the above findings. Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured for 2 of 3 medication carts observed and the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled with open expiration dates for 1 of 3 medication carts and 1 of 1 medication room observed. Findings include: Overflow Medication Cart Observation on 12/13/23 at 8:15 a.m. with Staff G (Nurse Unit Manager) revealed that the nurse's station door was open. The Overflow Medication Cart was unlocked in the nurse's station. Further observation also revealed that the Overflow Medication Cart had resident's oral prescription medications, resident's prescription inhalers and Over-The-Counter (OTC) medications. Interview on 12/13/23 at approximately 8:15 a.m. with Staff G confirmed the above finding. Staff G stated that only nurses and Medication Nursing Assistants (MNAs) should have access to medications. Staff G also stated that staff other than the nurses and MNAs, such as providers, Licensed Nursing Assistants, and therapists have access to the nurse'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 · Dcited before2023-12-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean environment in the dishwashing area. Findings include: Main Kitchen Observation on 12/13/23 at 8:00 a.m. in the kitchen dishwashing area with Staff L (Dietary Director) revealed two fans that were on and one ceiling vent that had accumulated gray dust and grease debris. Interview on 12/13/23 at 8:05 a.m. with Staff L confirmed the above finding. Review on 12/15/23 of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Food Code, dated 2022, retrieved from: https://www.fda.gov/media/164194/download, revealed . 4-602.13 Nonfood Contact Surfaces Nonfood contact surfaces or equipment shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . Review on 12/15/23 of facility policy titled, Sanitization, last revised November 2022, revealed: The food services area is maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-15 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to secure a communication process was implemented that ensures that the needs of the resident were addressed for hospice services for 1 resident in a closed record sample of 4 residents (Resident identifier is #228). Findings include: Review on 12/14/23 of Resident #228's hospice notes, dated 10/19/23, revealed that there was a recommendation to increase the morning dose of methadone to 5 milligrams (mg) and this was reviewed with the facility unit manager. Review on 12/14/23 of Resident #228's hospice recommendation forms revealed the following: On 10/9/23, there was a hospice recommendation for Methadone [Opioid] 10 mg/ml [milligram/milliliter] to give 0.25 ml [2.5 mg] by mouth every 12 hours. Further review of the 10/9/23 hospice recommendation revealed the facility nurse and provider had signed the hospice recommendation. On 10/19/23, there was a hospice recommendation to increase Methadone 10 mg/ml to 5 mg (0.5 ml) by mouth every morning and keep same dose of 2.5 mg (0.25 ml) by mouth every…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-10-03 · tag F0882 — patternDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to employ, at least on a part time basis, an Infection Prevetionist who completed specialized training in infection prevention and control for a facility census of 86 residents. Findings include: Review on 10/2/24 of infection control line listing and antibiotic stewardship records indicated that Staff D (Infection Preventionist) was responsbile for the infection prevention and control program. Interview on 10/2/2024 at approximately 1:10 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) revealed that Staff D had been the full time Infection Preventionist since January 2024. Review on 10/2/24 of Staff D's training revealed that Staff D had started specialized Infection Prevention Training in September 2023 but had not completed it. Interview on 10/2/2024 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff E (Registered Nurse) revealed that Staff E assisted Staff D with the infection control and prevention program. Staff E revealed that they had not completed specialized education in Infection Prevention.
“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
$16,153 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $16,153 — penalty dated 2025-12-17
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/01/2023 |
| BLACK MOUNTAIN II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 08/15/2025 |
| PR NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 08/15/2025 |
| RR NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 08/15/2025 |
| ZMRY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/15/2025 |
| MARGULIES, ZISHA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 08/15/2025 |
| YARMOVE, RIVKA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 08/15/2025 |
| 603 HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2025 |
| AULETTO, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/27/2025 |
| PASHA, MUHAMMAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| BEDFORD SNF REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| MAD FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| NATR TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| RAUSMAN, PHILIP | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2025 |
| RAUSMAN, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 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.
About 72% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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
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 NH
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 New Hampshire 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 305086. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-17, 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.