Crestwood Center
40 Crosby Street, Milford, NH 03055 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 82 certified beds · (603) 673-7061 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $15,646 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-26)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.4% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.0% | 13.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.3% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.3% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.9% | 19.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.6% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.3% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.2% | 83.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.1% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.6% | 13.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.74 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 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.
51.9% 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 63 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.4% 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 57 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 51.9%CMS range 38.6–65.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 6.2–13.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 75.4% | 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 | 49.1% | 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 | 61.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | 8.6%CMS range 5.4–13.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 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 82 beds and averages 63.9 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 18 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-06-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 4 residents reviewed for insulin were free from potential exposure to bloodborne pathogen transmission when staff administered insulin to two residents using the same insulin pen (Resident Identifiers are #1 and #2). Findings include: Interview on 6/26/24 at 10:45 a.m. with Staff B (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed that on 6/13/24 at around 9:00 a.m. he/she administered Resident #2's used Aspart insulin pen to Resident #1 by mistake. Resident #2's insulin pen was labeled for Resident #2. Staff B stated that he/she did not discard the insulin pen and used it shortly after on Resident #2 and then placed it back in the medication cart for continued use. Staff B stated that they thought that since the needle had been changed, there was no infection control concerns. Interview on 6/26/24 at approximately 9:15 a.m. with Staff A (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #1 had received Resident #2's Aspart insulin in error on 6/13/24 and that the insulin pen was returned to the medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for mood and behavior in a final sample of 17 residents (Resident identifier is #6). Findings include: Review on 12/18/25 of Resident #6's medical record revealed a progress note, dated 10/5/2025, indicating that Resident #6 was asking another resident to Get over here and give me a kiss. Further review of Resident #6's medical record revealed another progress note, dated 12/17/25 that indicated sexual behaviors noted this shift. Review on 12/18/25 of Resident #6's medical record revealed a provider note, dated 12/12/2025, that indicated Patient has recent increase in citalopram (antidepressant medication) for disinhibition with increased sexual comments . Non-Pharmacological Recommendations: monitor for improvement in inappropriate behaviors . continue with redirecting patient, use distraction, changing subject to decrease inappropriate comments. Review on 12/18/25 of Resident #6's care plan revealed no non-pharmacological…
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 before2025-12-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the facilities infection control policies for TBP (Transmission Based Precautions) for 2 of 2 dining observation. (Resident Identifier is #50.)Findings include:Resident #50 Observation on 12/16/25 at approximately 12:00 p.m. revealed a Contact Precaution sign posted outside Resident #50's room that read: .Clean hands before entering the room and before leaving the room. Staff: Wear .Gown and gloves . Further observation revealed Staff H (Business Manager) entered the room carrying a lunch tray. Staff H did not don a gown and gloves. Interview on 12/16/25 at approximately 12:10 p.m. with Staff H confirmed the above observation. Staff H stated that he/she delivered the lunch tray to Resident #50. Review on 12/17/25 of Resident #50's medical record revealed a physician order for contact precaution with an order date of 12/16/25. Review on 12/17/25 of the facility policy titled, IC306 Transmission Based Precautions, Revision Date 5/1/25, revealed . 8.3 An order for Transmission…
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 · E2024-01-30 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs in September 2023 and October 2023. Findings include: Review on 1/30/24 of the Facility Assessment revealed that Consider the overall needs of your resident population based on your Facility Assessment, MDS [Minimum Data Set], Resident Population Profile and any additional source when indicating the number, average, range or ratio needed. Further review of the Facility Assessment revealed the following staffing levels for direct care staff: first and second shifts - Licensed Nurses (Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) - Unit 1 was 1:10, Unit 2 was1:27, and Unit 3 was1:32; and Nurse aides (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) - Unit 1 was1:10, Unit 2 was1:14, and Unit 3 was 1:13. Review on 1/30/24 of the Daily Staffing Sheets from September 2023 to October 2023 revealed the following: 9/18/23 - Monday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 2 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 32 9/20/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 LPN,…
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 · E2024-01-30 · tag F0801 — patternEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietician or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services. Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at 9:33 a.m. with Staff G (Food Services Director) revealed that Staff G became the director a month ago. Staff G started as a dietary aide and part-time chef 7 years ago at the facility. Interview further revealed that Staff G was not certified as a dietary or food service manager, did not have a degree in food service management or in hospitality, and had not had two or more years of experience as director of food services. Interview on 1/28/24 at 2:00 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator) revealed that the facility does not employ a full-time qualified dietician.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 honor residents' choice for showers for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in a final sample of 17 residents (Resident Identifier is #60). Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at 10:45 a.m. with Resident #60 revealed that he/she had not had a shower in 2 weeks and that he/she had requested one be given today and was told they would check and let him/her know. Resident #60 revealed that he/she wants to shower at least once a week. Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #60's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 11/6/23 revealed that Resident #60 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 1/29/24 at 9:10 a.m. with Resident #60 revealed that he/she had not received a shower when requested on 1/28/24. Review on 1/30/24 of Resident #60's tub/shower schedule under tasks in the electronic medical record for bathing revealed the following: In November 2023 he/she received 3 of 5 scheduled…
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 · D2024-01-30 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' formulated advance directives would be followed for 1 out of 17 residents in a final sample (Resident Identifier is #16). Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's care plan, with a revision date of 9/19/22, revealed Resident #16's code status to be Full Code. Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's current Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed code status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's current paper chart revealed Resident #16's pink portable DNR form signed by the provider on 7/20/23. Interview on 1/29/24 at 2:06 p.m. with Staff H (Unit Manager) revealed resident #16's code status is DNR and Staff H confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/30/24 of facility policy OPS416 Person-Centered Care Plans, revised 10/24/22, revealed .review and revise the care plan after each assessment . assessment means after each . Minimum Data Set (MDS).
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 all allegations of abuse were reported to the administrator for 3 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse in a final sample of 17 residents (Resident Identifiers are #2, #4, and #36.) Findings include: Resident #2 Review on 1/28/24 of the facility investigation into an allegation of abuse by Staff A (Medication Nursing Assistant (MNA)) with Resident #2 revealed that on 1/10/24 an interview was conducted with Staff B (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) regarding another concern. During this interview, Staff B revealed that on 1/9/24 there was an incident that occurred with Staff A and Resident #2. Staff B stated that he/she left Staff A in Resident #2's room to go and get linen and upon returning to the room, Staff A was next to Resident #2 and in an elevated voice stating, Don't tell me to shut up, I'll just leave you here. Resident #4 Review on 1/29/24 of the facility investigation into an allegation of abuse by Staff A revealed that the facility compliance line received the following anonymous…
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 · D2024-01-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible regarding one resident room heater on 1 of 3 units observed (Unit 3). Findings include: Observation on 1/28/24 at 10:49 a.m. of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a heater along the base of the window wall missing a heater cover, exposing sharp metal heater fins extending approximately 4 feet in length along the bottom of the wall. Interview on 1/29/24 at 1:15 p.m. with Resident #30 revealed the heater cover had been missing approximately 2 months, and they had caught their socks on the exposed metal fins, while in their wheelchair in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. Interview on 1/29/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff J (Facilities Director) revealed a work order had not been submitted for the missing heater cover through the facility's work order system. Review on 1/31/24 of the facility's policy titled SH100 Safety Management Program,…
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 · C2025-12-18 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct 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 included specific staffing needs for each resident unit in the facility and specific staffing needs for each shift such as day, evening, night for a census of 65 residents. Findings include: Review on 12/17/25 of the Facility Assessment revealed that the assessment did not include specific staffing needs for each resident unit in the facility and/or identify specific staffing needs by shift. Review on 12/17/25 of facility Daily Nursing Schedule, dated 12/17/25 , revealed the facility has Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3.Interview on 12/17/25 with Staff G (Administrator) confirmed the above findings.
- No harm found · C2024-01-30 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
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 required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 3 of the 4 quarterly meetings reviewed in 2023. Findings include: Review on 1/26/24 of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting attendance sheets from 2023 revealed the following required members were not in attendance: Quarter 1 - Administrator and Infection Preventionist; Quarter 2 - Administrator and Infection Preventionist; and Quarter 4 - Administrator and 2 other members of the facility's staff. Interview on 1/28/24 at approximately 2:35 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/28/24 of the facility's policy titled Center Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Process, revised 10/24/22, revealed: . 2. The QAA Committee: . 2.1.1 Administrator, 2.1.2 Director of Nursing, 2.1.3 Medical Director, 2.1.4 Infection Preventionist, or designee .
- No harm found · B2024-01-30 · 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 provide timely notifications of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 3 out of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notices (Resident Identifiers are #50, #18, and #270). Findings include: Resident #50 Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #50's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Residents who Received Medicare Part A Services (FORM CMS-20052) revealed that the facility/provider initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted (he/she stayed at the facility) and that his/her last covered skilled day was 1/5/24, the ABN and the NOMNC provided by facility revealed .services end date 1/5/24 . notification to Resident/Resident's representative was given on 1/4/24. Resident #18 Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #18's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Residents who Received Medicare Part A Services revealed that the facility/provider initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when…
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 · B2024-01-30 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 provide residents with activities designed to meet their preferences, interests, and needs in the evenings since November 2023. Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at approximately 2:00 p.m. with members of the Resident Council revealed that activities were not offered in the evening and that residents have asked for Movie Nights to be offered in the evenings during the week and on weekends. Review on 1/28/24 of the Activities Calendars for December 2023 and January 2024 revealed the facility did not provide activities in the evenings after 3 p.m. Interview on 1/29/24 at approximately 12:30 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/31/24 of the facility's policy titled REC200 Resident's/Patient's Choice, revised 4/7/18, revealed: Residents/Patients have the right to participate or not participate in leisure and recreation of their choosing.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$15,646 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $15,646 — penalty dated 2024-06-26
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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HARBORSIDE NEW HAMPSHIRE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2019 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| HARBORSIDE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| HARBORSIDE TOLEDO BUSINESS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| SUNBRIDGE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2019 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2019 |
| BRIDGEFORD, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| MENDELSON, AVI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| BENSON, HANNAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| MORRIS, DIANE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/23/2023 |
| OJUTALAYO, AYOBAMI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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.
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 305061. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, 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.