Ridgewood Center, Genesis HealthCare
25 Ridgewood Road, Bedford, NH 03110 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 150 certified beds · (603) 623-8805 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $15,646 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-21)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 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 | 35.4% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 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 | 9.0% | 13.7% | 6.5% | better than 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 | 3.7% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.5% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.8% | 19.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.7% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.7% | 17.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.0% | 83.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.4% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.2% | 13.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.01 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.67 | 1.87 | 1.80 | 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.
48.0% 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 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.8% 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 94 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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 | 48.0%CMS range 35.0–61.2 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 6.6–14.5 | 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 | 62.8% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 60.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 98.3% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.6–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 150 beds and averages 109.8 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.12 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.16 to 1.01 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-06-21 · 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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from exposure to bloodborne pathogen transmission when staff used one insulin pen to administer insulin to two residents on multiple days (Resident Identifiers are #1 and #2). Findings include: Interview on 6/21/24 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff D (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) revealed that on 6/15/24 and 6/16/24 he/she used Resident #1's used Lantus (insulin) pen to administer insulin to Resident #2 then put back Resident #1's used Lantus pen in the medication cart. Interview on 6/21/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m with Staff C (LPN) revealed that he/she used Resident #1's used Lantus pen to administer insulin to Resident #1 on 6/17/24, which was used to administer insulin to Resident #2 on 6/15/24 and 6/16/24. Staff C was not aware that Resident #1's used lantus pen was used to administer insulin to Resident #2 on above mentioned dates. Review on 6/21/24 of Resident #1's June 2024's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed an active physician'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 · D2026-02-11 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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 a resident received proper treatment to maintain hearing abilities for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Communication-Sensory in a final survey sample of 22 residents. (Resident identifier is #11.)Findings include:Interview on 2/10/26 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Resident #11 revealed that he/she had difficulty hearing and that his/her hearing aides were broken a long time ago. Further interview revealed that Resident #11 had been waiting a while to be seen for new hearing aids. Resident #11 stated the facility was aware and had given him/her a 'pocket talker,' but Resident #11 did not like using the pocket talker and would prefer hearing aids. Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #11's progress notes revealed a care plan meeting note, dated 12/16/25, . UM (Unit Manager) will see if [Resident name omitted] is on the list to be seen by [Name of Audiologist omitted] when they are in this week. Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #11's medical record revealed the last audiology consult…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to establish and maintain a system of records of receipt and disposition of controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for new admissions and 1 of 9 residents observed during medication administration. (Resident Identifiers are #26, #31, and #52.)Findings include:Resident #52 Observation on 2/10/26 at approximately 1:53 p.m. with Staff J (Licensed Practical Nurse) during medication administration revealed Staff J placing one-half tablet of Tramadol (opioid) 50 milligram (mg) into a medication cup. Staff J then documented on the controlled drug record that Resident #52 received one-half tablet of Tramadol 50 mg and documented that 18 half-tablets remained. Observation further revealed that Resident #52's Tramadol 50 mg bingo card indicated 17 half-tablets were present. Review on 2/10/26 at approximately 1:56 p.m. of Resident #52's controlled drug record for Tramadol 50 mg (half tablets) revealed a single entry on 2/10/26 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were appropriately labeled on 2 of 3 medication carts observed and 1 of 2 medication rooms observed and failed to ensure that expired medication was removed from the medication cart on 1 of 3 medication carts observed. (Resident identifiers are #71 and #66.)Findings include: 3rd Floor South Medication Cart Observation on [DATE] at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) of the 3rd Floor South Medication Cart revealed: Lidocaine 1% multi-dose vial opened with no Resident identifier, no date of opening and no date of expirationResident #71 - 7 Depakote DR (Delayed Release) 125 mg (milligrams) expiration date 2/26 Interview on [DATE] at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings. 2nd Floor North Medication Cart Observation on [DATE] at approximately 8:40 a.m. with Staff B (LPN) of the 2nd Floor North Medication Cart revealed:2 opened multi-dose…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide laboratory services as ordered for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory infection. (Resident identifier is #87.)Findings include: Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #87's provider note, dated 1/31/26, revealed that Resident #87 had cough, nasal congestion, an upper respiratory infection and to test for flu, RSV, and COVID STAT (immediately or without delay). Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #87's active orders revealed a diagnostic test order for influenza (flu), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and COVID-19 with an order date of 1/31/26. Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #87's Respiratory Multiplex PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) laboratory report revealed a collection date of 2/3/26 (date when a specimen was collected, four days after the order date), a received date of 2/4/26 (date when specimen was received by the laboratory), and report date of 2/4/26 (when results were reported by laboratory). Further review revealed that Resident #87 was positive for RSV. Review on 2/11/26 of Resident #87's provider note, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to policies and procedures for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure injuries and Transmission Based Precaution (TBP) and 4 of 7 residents reviewed for TBP. (Resident identifiers are #9, #37, #93, #100, and #102.)Findings include: Resident #9 Observation on 2/10/26 at approximately 11:23 a.m. in Resident #9's room revealed an EBP signage posted outside of Resident #9's room door. Further observation revealed that Staff L (Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant) was in Resident #9's room wearing mask and gloves. Staff L was not wearing a gown. Staff L was observed with a wet washcloth and talking to Resident #9. Interview on 2/10/26 at 11:28 a.m. with Staff L revealed that he/she was assisting Resident #9 in changing their clothes (shorts and socks). Staff L confirmed that he/she did not don a gown. Staff L also revealed that he/she did not see the EBP sign on Resident #9's door. Review on 2/10/26 of Resident #9's medical record revealed that Resident #9 was on EBP for an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comphrensive care plan for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for mood and behavior in a final sample of 23 residents. (Resident identifier is #92.) Findings include:Resident #92 Review on 1/7/25 of Resident #92's medical diagnosis list revealed that Resident #92 with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Review on 1/7/25 of Resident #92's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/1/24, revealed that it was documented in Section I6100, Diagnosis, that Resident #92 had PTSD. Review on 1/7/25 of Resident #92's comprehensive care plan revealed that there were no focus, triggers, or interventions for Resident #92's PTSD. Interview on 1/8/25 at 9:00 a.m. with Staff I (Unit Manager) confirmed that there were no focus, triggers, or interventions for PTSD in Resident #92's comprehensive care plan.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · 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 record review and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to follow the professional standards of care for 3 residents in a final sample to 23 residents. (Resident identifier is #273, #101, and #73.) Findings include:Standard: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2021. Chapter 31 Medication Administration Page 595, .Medications that are time critical most likely cause harm or have subtherapeutic effects if they are not administered in time (usually 30 minutes before and after the scheduled dose). Non-time-critical medications most likely do not cause harm if they are given within 1 hour to 2 hours before or after the schedule time. Thus, you need to administer time-critical medications at a precise time, within 30 minutes before and after a scheduled time. You administer non-time-critical medications within 1 to 2 hours of their scheduled times . Resident #73 Interview on 1/6/25 at approximately 10:45 a.m. with Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 a resident who attends dialysis had interventions to care and monitor their access site and that they received physician ordered medications for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis in a final sample of 23 residents. (Resident identifier is #1.) Findings include: Interview on 1/7/25 at 1:35 p.m. with Resident #1 revealed that he/she attends dialysis 3 times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and is away from the facility from approximately 11:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Review on 1/7/25 of Resident #1's January's 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the medication Calcium Acetate (a phosphate binder) were documented as AW (away from center; meaning not administered) on 1/2, 1/4, and 1/6/25. Further review of Resident #1 MAR revealed that he/she has an order for Midodrine HCL (hydrochloride) Oral Tablet 5 MG (milligram) Give 2 tablets by mouth three times a day for low blood pressure 10 mg and to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · 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 trays were stored dry and in sanitary condition in the main kitchen. Findings include: Standard: Review on 1/7/25 of the U.S. FDA (Food Drug and Administration) Food Code (2017), retrieved from: https://www.fda.gov/media/110822/download, [page 151-153] revealed the following: 4-901.11 Equipment and Utensils, Air-Drying Required. After cleaning and SANITIZING, EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS: (A) Shall be air-dried or used after adequate draining as specified in the first paragraph of 40 CFR 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in 151 antimicrobial formulations (food-contact surface SANITIZING solutions), before contact with FOOD; and (B) May not be cloth dried except that UTENSILS that have been air-dried may be polished with cloths that are maintained clean and dry. 4-903.11 Equipment, Utensils, Linens, and Single-Service and Single-Use Articles. (A) Except as specified in (D) of this section, cleaned EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, laundered LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete records for 1 of 1 record reviewed for death in a final sample of 23 (Resident identifier is #11.) Findings include: Review on 1/07/25 of Resident #11's nursing progress note ,dated 01/04/25 at 14:48, revealed .Resident time of death at 14:42 [2:42 p.m.], 2 RN [Registered Nurse] pronouncing death . No other information was present for this entry. Review on 1/07/25 at 3:15 p.m. of the facility's policy titled NSG104 Pronouncement of Patient Death, effective 5/01/23, revealed .Nurses will comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding determination of death .1.5. A RN who has determined and pronounced death will document the clinical criteria for such determination and pronouncement in the patient's medical record. 1.5.1 Description of the discovery of the patient; 1.5.2 Any treatment of the patient undertaken; 1.5.3 Findings from assessment (presumptive and conclusive signs identified): 1.5.3.1 No carotid and peripheral pulse, 1.5.3.2 Pupils are fixed and nonreactive to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-31 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide 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 — 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, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs (Resident Identifiers are #12, #13, #17, #31, #38, #39, #47, #74, #84, #156 and #250). Findings include: Resident #38 Observation on 10/29/23 at approximately 11:00 a.m. of Resident #38 appeared upset, tearful, and sitting in his/her fecal matter in bed. Interview on 10/29/23 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Resident #38 revealed he/she had been sitting in his/her fecal matter for approximately an hour, after utilizing the call bell for assistance. Interview on 10/29/23 at approximately 11:05 a.m. with Staff H (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) confirmed the above finding. Staff A (Administrator) stated that a Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) was on break leaving them short to answer call lights. Resident #156 Interview on 10/29/23 at approximately 11:10 a.m. with Resident #156 revealed after utilizing his/her call bell last week it took staff approximately a half hour…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-31 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were offered, educated, and received the pneumococcal and/or influenza immunization 3 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Resident Identifiers are #8, #55 and #67). Findings Include: Review on 10/31/23 of Summary: Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)-United States, 2023-24, found at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/summary/summary-recommendations.htm, revealed the .Timing of vaccination - For most persons who need only one dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating . Resident #8 Review on 10/31/23 of Resident #8's medical record revealed the last documented influenza immunization was administered on 12/3/21. Review on 10/31/23 of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-31 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was assessed for restraints for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for restraints in a final sample of 22 residents. (Resident identifier is #12). Findings include: Observation on 10/29/23 at approximately 2:00 p.m. of Resident #12 revealed that he/she was in a wheelchair with a fastened seatbelt. Review on 10/30/23 of Resident #12's medical record revealed that there was no assessment of the seatbelt since 6/24/21 and no physician order for seatbelt usage. Further review of the medical record revealed a care plan dated 3/5/21 with an intervention to utilize and release restraint per the physician's order. Observation on 10/31/23 at approximately 9:10 a.m. of Resident #12 revealed that he/she was in a wheelchair with a seatbelt fastened. Interview on 10/31/23 at approximately 9:10 a.m. of Resident #12 revealed that he/she was able to remove the seatbelt on command. Interview on 10/31/23 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Staff C (Third floor Unit Manager) confirmed that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$15,646 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $15,646 — penalty dated 2024-06-21
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 183; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENESIS NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2011 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2014 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2017 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2017 |
| GENESIS OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/11/2025 |
| GHC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2017 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/01/2012 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2012 |
| BRIDGEFORD, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| MENDELSON, AVI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| DJAKONAN, CHANTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/11/2025 |
| OJUTALAYO, AYOBAMI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/11/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
10 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 83% 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 $1.4M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 305052. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, 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.