Hackett Hill Healthcare Center
191 Hackett Hill Road, Manchester, NH 03102 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (603) 668-8161 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-17)
- 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 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 | 6.2% | 22.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.2% | 13.7% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.8% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 17.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 19.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.8% | 25.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.4% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.0% | 83.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.4% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.9% | 13.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.45 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.78 | 1.87 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.0% 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 170 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 112 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 0.69 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% 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 | 56.0%CMS range 47.2–64.0 | 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 | 11.3%CMS range 8.2–14.9 | 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 | 71.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 68.8% | 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 | 69.6% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 99.1% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.5% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 4.8–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 70 beds and averages 58.6 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 11 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.24 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.39 to 0.87 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-17 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to have physician's orders at admission for a wound that resulted in hospitalization for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident identifier is #3).Findings include:Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's medical record revealed he/she was admitted on [DATE].Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's Clinical Admission assessment, dated 11/5/25, revealed a puncture wound present on admission to the right groin.Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's Vascular Surgery Discharge summary dated [DATE], revealed discharge instructions for daily wound treatment to the right groin wound.Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's admission orders revealed no treatment orders for the right groin wound.Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's November 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no wound treatments performed for the right groin wound.Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #3's progress note, dated 11/12/25, revealed that Resident #3 was sent 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 · Fcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the water management plan accurately described the facility's water system, failed to identify all specific areas where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens may grow, failed to outline control measures to prevent such growth, and failed to establish monitoring procedures with defined acceptable ranges that had the potential to affect the facility with a census of 62 residents.Findings include: Review on 4/22/26 of the facility's water management plan, review date of 3/25/26, revealed the following: The water management plan description and flow diagram section identified that water flowed through the boilers and heat up to 142 plus degrees (it did not specify Fahrenheit or Celsius). Further review revealed that on the domestic side, water was delivered at 142 plus degrees (it did not specify Fahrenheit or Celsius) to a mixing valve, where hot water is balance with cold water to a temperature of 105 to 120…
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 before2026-04-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards for1 of 3 resident observed for medication administration and for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for general concerns in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifiers are #43 and #56.)Findings include: Standard: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2021. Page 614 .It is essential to verify the accuracy of every medication you give to your patients with the patient's order .Do not give a medication until you are certain that you can follow the seven rights of medication administration . Page 639 .Before administering medication, it is critical that all information is correct. You should check for accuracy three times: 1. First check is when the medications are pulled or retrieved from the automated dispensing machine, the medication drawer, or whatever system is in place at the agency. 2. The second check is when preparation of the medications…
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 · D2026-04-24 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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 proper treatment and care for good foot health for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for ADLs (activities of daily living) in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifier is #18.)Findings include: Observation on 4/22/26 at approximately 9:00 a.m. of Resident #18's left foot revealed his/her toenails were thick and elongated. Interview on 4/22/26 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Resident #18 revealed he/she was unsure of the last time they were seen by a podiatrist.Observation and Interview on 4/23/26 at approximately 8:15 a.m. with Staff F (Unit Manager) of Resident #18's left foot confirmed his/her toenails were thick and elongated. Interview on 4/23/26 at approximately 8:40 a.m. with Staff F revealed that Resident #18 was last seen by a podiatrist on 9/25/25. Further interview revealed the podiatrist was last at the facility on 12/29/25.Review on 4/24/26 of Resident #18's last podiatrist note, dated 9/25/25, revealed, Progress note . Non-professional treatment is hazardous to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff wear appropriate (Personal Protective Equipment) PPE and perform hand hygiene during a dressing change for 1 of 1 resident observed for wound care (Resident identifier is #4).Findings include:Observation on 12/17/25 at approximately 9:50 a.m. revealed Resident #4 had a sign for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) next to their door. Staff B (Wound Nurse) performed hand hygiene and donned gloves and a gown while preparing to perform Resident #4's sacral dressing change. Staff B removed the wound dressing from Resident #4's sacral wound. Staff B doffed his/her gloves and donned clean gloves without performing hand hygiene in-between. Staff B cleansed the wound, doffed their gown and gloves, and exited the room. Staff B did not perform hand hygiene and proceeded to retrieve additional supply from the treatment cart. Staff B returned to Resident #4's room and performed hand hygiene and donned gloves. Staff B did not donn a gown. Staff B applied treatment to Resident #4 wound and…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 inform residents or resident's representative of the risk and benefits of psychotropic medication use for 2 out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in final sample of 17 residents. (Resident identifiers are #16 and #50.) Findings include: Resident #16 Review on 3/12/25 of Resident #16's medical record revealed a physician's order for Ativan Oral Tablet 0.5 MG[milligram] (Lorazepam) Give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for anxiety monitor for anxiousness, restlessness and other signs of anxiety, start date of 1/21/25. Further record review revealed there was no documentation of consent for the psychotropic medication use for Resident #16. Resident #50 Review on 3/12/25 of Resident #50's medical record revealed a physician's order for Buspirone HCL Oral tablet 15 MG (Buspirone HCL) Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for anxiety monitor for increased anxiousness, restlessness and other signs of anxiety, start date of 9/10/24. Further record review revealed there was 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 · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow the professional standards of care for 3 residents in a final sample of 17 residents. (Resident identifiers are #33, #55 and #7.) Findings include: Standard: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2021. Page 614 .It is essential to verify the accuracy of every medication you give to your patients with the patient's order. If the medication order is incomplete, incorrect, or inappropriate, or if there is a discrepancy between the original order and the information on the MAR [Medication Administration Record]. consult with the health care provider. Do not give a medication until you are certain that you can follow the seven rights of medication administration . Page 672 .seven rights of medication administration include right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, right time, right documentation and right indication .` Resident #33…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow policies and procedures for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (Resident identifier is #55) and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for disinfection of glucometer (Resident identifiers are #165 and #166). Findings include: Observation on 3/11/25 at approximately 11:40 a.m. of Staff C (Medication Nursing Assistant) revealed he/she went from Resident #165's room to Resident #166's room with a glucometer and a cup with alcohol wipes, lancets, and test strips in it, and no cleaning/disinfecting wipes. The glucometer was observed to not be visibly soiled. Review on 3/11/25 of Resident #165's and Resident #166's Medication Administration Record revealed provider orders for capillary blood glucose (CBG). Interview on 3/11/25 at approximately 11:40 a.m. with Staff C revealed that he/she tested capillary blood glucose for Resident #165 and then Resident #166. Further interview revealed he/she had not disinfected the glucometer between these residents. Staff C stated…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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 maintain patient care equipment per manufacturer's instruction for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care in a final sample of 17 residents. (Resident identifier is #7). Findings include: Interview on 3/11/25 at approximately 9:50 a.m. with Resident #7 revealed concerns that his/her Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine parts needed replacement for a long time and no one is assisting with replacing the parts of his/her headpiece. Observation on 3/11/25 at 9:50 a.m. revealed that the head strap had brownish discoloration, areas of the head piece were in disrepair, and the tubing to the mask was yellowish in color. Interview on 3/12/25 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff D (Clinical Lead) confirmed the above findings. Interview on 3/13/25 at approximately 10:40 a.m. with Staff K (Unit Manager) revealed that the face mask, tubing, and headgear have not been changed since Resident #7 was admitted to the facility. Review on 3/13/25 of Resident #7's medical record…
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 · D2024-04-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the hospice agency and the facility failed to provide collaborative services for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospice services in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident Identifier #44). Findings include: Review on 4/2/24 of Resident #44's care plan for hospice revealed the following: Hospice Nursing 2-3x (times) a week and PRN (as needed) to assess and manage symptoms, comfort/pain, and bowel function, date initiated: 2/26/24 Hospice Nursing Assistant 1-2x a week to complement ADL (activities of daily living) care and provide comfort, date initiated: 2/26/24 Hospice Social Work 1x month and PRN to provide psychosocial support related to end of life care, date initiated: 2/20/24 Hospice Volunteer 1x month and PRN for companionship, date initiated 2/20/24 Review on 4/2/24 of Resident #44's Hospice Certification and Plan of Care (POC) dated 2/19/24 - 5/18/24, revealed: Frequency/Duration of Visits: SN 7x week x1, 3x week x12; Master of Social Work (MSW) 1x month x1; and Chaplain (CH) 1x month x1 Review on 4/2/24 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 · D2024-04-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5 percent (%) or greater for 2 out of 4 residents observed for medication administration (Resident Identifiers #24 and #41). Findings include: Resident #24 Observation on 4/2/24 at approximately 7:30 a.m. of Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) preparing medication for Resident #24 revealed Staff A was going to administer Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg). Further observation revealed Staff A removed Resident #24's Novolin N Insulin Pen and placed it on the medication cart. Staff A dialed the pen to 16 units. Staff A proceeded to administer the 16 units of insulin without rolling the pen (to ensure that the insulin in the pen was the correct dosage). Staff A did not prime the insulin pen and did not wait the 5 seconds prior to removing the insulin pen from Resident #24's abdomen. Review on 4/2/24 of Resident #24's April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's orders: Novolin N Subcutaneous Suspension 100…
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 · D2024-04-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure open injectable medications were labeled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in 1 out of 2 medication carts and in 1 of 1 medication rooms observed and refrigeration temperatures were not monitored daily for medications storage in 1 out of 1 medication rooms observed. Findings include: Observation on 4/1/24 at approximately 8:10 a.m. of Webster Street Medication Cart revealed an open Lantus Insulin Pen without an open or open expiration date. Interview on 4/1/24 with Staff F (Registered Nurse) confirmed the above finding. Review on 4/2/24 of the Lantus Insulin Pen manufacturer's instructions revealed After 28 days, throw your opened Lantus pen away - even if it still has insulin in it. Observation on 4/1/24 at approximately 8:20 a.m. of the Derryfield Medication Room revealed an open vial of Tuberculin Purified Derivative without an open or open expiration date. Interview on 4/1/24 at approximately 8:20 a.m. with Staff G (Registered Nurse) confirmed the above…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-03-13 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 resident and/or resident representative was informed, in writing, the items and services that the facility offers and for which the resident may be charged, and the amount of charges for those services for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notices who remained in the facility (Resident identifiers are #17 and #65). Findings include: Resident #17 Review on 3/11/25 of the Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) - Resident discharged within the last 6 months form, completed by the facility, revealed Resident #17 was discharged from Medicare services and remained in the facility. Resident #17's last covered day was 10/31/24. Review on 3/11/25 of Resident #17's Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) ABN dated 10/29/24 revealed that beginning on 11/1/24, Resident #17 will no longer require Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Skilled Nursing Care, and will no longer be covered by Medicare. Further review revealed the SNF ABN did not contain the services that the facility offers and for which…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-04-02 · tag F0685 — patternAssist 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 interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment for hearing loss for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hearing and vision in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident Identifier #7). Interview on 4/1/24 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Resident #7 revealed he/she was very hard of hearing. Resident #7 stated he/she had wax in them [their ears]. Review on 4/1/24 of Resident #7's diagnosis list revealed a medical diagnosis of Bilateral Hearing Loss. Interview on 4/2/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Staff E (Recreation Assistant) regarding Resident #7 revealed, communication is difficult, does not engage in conversations or attend group activities. Review on 4/2/24 of Resident #7's Audiology visit dated 1/29/24 revealed that the degree of hearing loss could not be determined. He/she had too much wax in bilateral ear canals to complete a hearing evaluation. A large amount of wax was removed, but the resident could not tolerate further cleaning. Medical consult is needed for wax removal orders. Re-evaluate 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.
- No harm found · B2024-01-09 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 nursing staff postings reflected the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff on shifts for 7 out of 30 days of daily nursing staff postings reviewed. Findings include: Review on 1/9/24 of the facility's working nursing schedule revealed the following: On 12/9/23 evening shift, there were 5 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) also known as Licensed Nursing (LNAs) and 1 unlicensed unit aide. Night shift had 2 CNAs on the schedule. On 12/11/23 evening shift, there were 4 CNAs, and 1 unlicensed unit aide; night shift had 3 CNAs, and 1 unlicensed unit aide. On 12/14/23 evening shift, there were 3 CNAs, and 1 unlicensed unit aide; night shift had 3 CNAs and 1 unlicensed unit aide. On 12/15/23 night shift, there were 3 CNAs and 1 unlicensed unit aide. On 12/16/23 night shift, there were 2 CNAs and 1 unlicensed unit aide. On 12/18/23 evening shift, there were 6 CNAs and 1 unlicensed unit aide; night shift had 3 CNAs and 1 unlicensed unit aide. On 1/3/24 night shift, there…
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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-12-17
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
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 | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 191 HACKETT HILL ROAD OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/02/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/02/2015 |
| GENESIS NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/01/2014 |
| GENESIS OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/01/2014 |
| GHC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/02/2015 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2012 |
| 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 |
| CULLEROT, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/09/2025 |
| OJUTALAYO, AYOBAMI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New Hampshire Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 305038. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-24, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.