Glencliff Home For The Elderly
393 High Street, Glencliff, NH 03238 · Government - State · 130 certified beds · (603) 989-3111 Medicaid only — no Medicare
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (14% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 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, and staffing on its 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 | 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 fell from 3 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 | 4.1% | 22.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.9% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.4% | 13.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 3.9% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.4% | 17.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 41.3% | 19.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.5% | 25.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 54.1% | 17.8% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.56 | 1.87 | 1.80 | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.07 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 130 beds and averages 65.9 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 64 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.23 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.90 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.43 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 14% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-10-30 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 have an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use to improve resident outcomes and reduce antibiotic resistance for a facility census of 63 residents.Findings include:Review on 10/29/25 of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program, dated April 2025, revealed no antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor appropriate antibiotic use.Review on 10/29/25 of the facility antibiotic line list for September 2025 revealed that there were 8 residents who were prescribed antibiotics, and there was no evaluation of appropriateness of antibiotic use.Interview on 10/29/2025 at approximately 1:10 p.m. with Staff J (Infection Preventionist) confirmed the above findings. Staff J revealed that he/she does not track or trend appropriate antibiotic use. Staff J was unable to explain a process to determine appropriateness of antibiotic treatments such as utilizing antibiotic use protocols. Further interview revealed Staff J reports…
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 · F2025-10-30 · tag F0882 — widespreadDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
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 the Infection Preventionist (IP) had the time necessary to properly assess, develop, implement, monitor, and manage the Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) for a facility census of 63 residents.Findings include:Interview on 10/29/2025 at approximately 11:15 a.m. with Staff I (Director of Nursing (DON)) revealed that Staff J (IP) works approximately 7 hours weekly and additionally coordinates resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments and the QAPI program.Interview on 10/29/2025 at approximately 1:15 p.m. with Staff I (DON) revealed that Staff J (IP) did not work yesterday and was not available by phone. Staff I did not know when Staff J was working this week. Interview on 10/29/25 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff J confirmed the Staff J did not work yesterday and revealed they were available until 1:15 p.m. today. Staff J confirmed that they worked approximately 8 hours a week at the facility. Review on 10/29/25 of Staff J's job description, dated 7/10/19,…
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 · E2025-10-30 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 that the pharmacist reported any irregularities monthly to the attending physician, the facility's medical director, and the director of nursing for 2 out of 3 months reviewed. (Resident identifiers are #13, #17, #19, #25, and #58). Findings Include:Review on 10/29/25 of the facility's drug regimen reviews (DRR) for the months of August, September, and October 2025 revealed they were not received by the facility until 10/29/25. The DRRs from August and September had the following recommendations: Resident #13's pharmacy recommendations, dated 9/30/25, was to change the Aspirin 81 mg (milligram) EC (Enteric Coated), 4 tabs (324 mg), to one tablet of Aspirin 325 mg tablet to reduce pill burden; Resident #17's pharmacy recommendation, dated 8/31/25, was that Resident #17 had no clinical Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) medical diagnosis listed for taking Atorvastatin 30 mg daily; Resident #19's pharmacy recommendation dated, 8/31/25, was that Resident #19 had no clinical…
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 · D2025-10-30 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — isolatedConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
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 ensure that the facility assessment determined the amount of time required to fulfill the role of the designated Infection Preventionist (IP).Findings include:Review on 10/29/25 of the facility's Facility Assessment, last reviewed 7/2025, revealed that there was no determination of the time required to fulfill the role of the IP in order to meet the residents' needs.Interview on 10/29/2025 at 12:02 p.m. with Staff M (Deputy Administrator) confirmed the above findings.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-30 · 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 implement its Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) policy for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for EBP. (Resident identifiers are #1 and #56).Findings Include:Resident #1 Review on 10/29/25 of Resident #1's medical record revealed that Resident #1 required EBP for a history of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), a Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO). Observation on 10/28/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. on the Gold floor revealed that there was no indication of EBP for Resident #1, such as EBP signage or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies in their room or outside of the resident's room. Interview on 10/29/25 between 9:05 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. with Staff D (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)), and Staff F (LNA), revealed that there were no resident requiring EBP on the Gold floor. Interview on 10/30/25 at 8:50 a.m. with Staff H (LNA) revealed that when providing care for Resident #1, such as changing linens and resident transfer, Staff H would use gloves and no gown. Resident #56 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 · D2025-10-30 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 provide staff with education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccine and failed to offer staff information on obtaining COVID-19 vaccine for 1 of 1 staff reviewed for COVID-19 immunization.Findings include:Review on 10/29/2025 of Staff N's (Medication Nursing Assistant (MNA)) COVID-19 vaccination history revealed 2 prior vaccinations in 2022. The facility was unable to provide evidence that Staff N was provided information on where to obtain COVID-19 vaccines or education regarding COVID-19 vaccines since 2022. Review on 10/29/25 of facility Infection Prevention and Control Manual last review date 7/2025 revealed on page 27 .VACCINATIONS .please see the Center for Disease Control's Adult Vaccination Schedule 2025: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-schedules/adult-easyread.htmlInterview on10/29/2025 at approximately 1:10 p.m. with Staff J (Infection Preventionist) confirmed the above policy. Staff J revealed that they do not offer COVID-19 vaccination and no…
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 · Fcited before2024-11-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a water management program to minimize the risk of Legionella that had the potential to effect the facility census of 67 residents who resided at the facility. Findings include: Interview on 11/7/24 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B (Maintenance Assistant) revealed that the Staff B was unable to provide the facility water management program. Interview on 11/7/24 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff C (Infectionist Preventionist) revealed that they were not aware of the facility's water management program.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the manufacturer's specifications regarding the administration of eye drops for 2 of 2 eye drops observed in 42 medication administration observations (Resident Identifier #20). Findings include: Observation on 11/6/24 at approximately 8:00 a.m. during medication administration for Resident #20 with Staff A (Medication Nursing Assistant (MNA)) revealed that Staff A administered one drop of Brimonidine eye drops to each eye and then proceeded to administer one drop of Lubricant eye drops (brand name omitted) to each eye without spacing out the administration of the two above mentioned eye drops. Review on 11/6/24 of Resident #20's active physician order revealed an order for Brimonidine 0.2 percent (%), one drop in both eyes twice a day for a diagnoses of unspecified glaucoma and an order for a Lubricant eye drop 0.5-0.95 (brand name omitted), one drop ophthalmic [eye] three times a day. Interview on 11/6/24 at approximately 8:05 a.m. with Staff A confirmed that they did not wait…
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 · D2024-11-07 · 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 ensure Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policies followed professional standards and failed to document irreversible signs of death for 1 of 2 closed record reviewed (Resident Identifier #67). Findings include: American Heart Association Journals: Circulation, [DATE], Volume 122. Number 18 supply 3, found at https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.970905 Part 3: Ethics: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Withholding and Withdrawing CPR (Termination of Resuscitative Efforts) Related to Out-of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) Criteria for Not Starting CPR in All OHCA .Basic life support (BLS) training urges all potential rescuers to immediately begin CPR without seeking consent, because any delay in care dramatically decreases the chances of survival. While the general rule is to provide emergency treatment to a victim of cardiac arrest, there are a few…
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 · E2023-10-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 3 kitchenettes observed. Findings include: Kitchen: Observation on 10/16/2023 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff A (Dietary Manager) revealed the following: Staff F (Dietary Aid) was not wearing a hair restraint while preparing dessert in the bakery room of the kitchen; Dust build up over the hood vent above cooking area. Review on 10/16/23 of the hood vent inspection tag revealed that it was last inspected in February 2023 and was due every 180 days. Interview on 10/16/23 at approximately 10:10 a.m. with Staff A confirmed that inspection was overdue. Review on 10/16/2023 at approximately 10:20 a.m. of dishwasher temperature logs for September 2023 and October 2023 with Staff A revealed no temperatures documented on the following dates: 9/1/23, 9/2/23, 9/3/23, 9/4/23, 9/5/23, 9/6/23, 9/7/23, 9/8/23, 9/10/23, 9/12/23, 9/13/23, 9/14/23, 9/16/23, 9/17/23, 9/18/23,…
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 · D2023-10-18 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 establish a monitoring protocol for adverse consequences for residents who use antipsychotic medications for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident Identifier is #30). Findings include: Review on 10/18/23 of Resident #30's of the current physician orders in the electronic medical record revealed an order for Abilify 10 milligrams (mg) once a day for Schizophrenia, start date 12/14/22 (antipsychotic medication). Review on 10/18/23 of Resident #30's medical record revealed a Dyskinesia Identification System (DISCUS): Condensed User Scale) assessment, used to identify adverse reactions to antipsychotic medications, was last completed on 1/11/23. Interview on 10/18/23 at 12:40 with Staff C (Assistant Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings and revealed that a DISCUS should be completed every 6 months for residents on antipsychotic medications. Review on 10/19/23 of the facility's policy on DISCUS Testing Titled: DISCUS Testing .Procedure: 1. Residents with prescribed…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NH
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 30E059. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-30, 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.