Courville at Nashua
22 Hunt Street, Nashua, NH 03060 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 94 certified beds · (603) 889-5450 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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 | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 10.1% | 22.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.0% | 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 | 0.5% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.2% | 17.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.1% | 19.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.8% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 83.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.0% | 13.4% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.37 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 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.
63.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 408 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 208 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 63.7%CMS range 58.1–67.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 7.4–11.7 | 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 | 55.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 43.8% | 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 | 53.4% | 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 | 97.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.7%CMS range 3.8–8.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 94 beds and averages 74.6 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-02 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary medications in a final sample of 16 residents. (Resident identifier is #5.)Findings include:Review on 7/1/26 of Resident #5's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed a current order for Lorazepam Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (milligram) give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for agitation, with a start date of 6/12/26. Interview on 7/2/26 at approximately 8:24 a.m. with Staff C (Director of Nursing) confirmed that the Lorazepam order for Resident #5 was greater than 14 days. Interview on 7/2/26 at approximately 10:47 a.m. with Staff G (Physician's Assistant) revealed that they did not document a rationale for the Lorazepam. Review on 7/2/26 of the facility's policy The [NAME] at Nashua Psychotropic Medication Use, with no review date, revealed, 2. Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on a PRN basis unless that…
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 before2026-07-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their policies for hand hygiene and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 1 of 4 residents observed for medication administration and for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for EBP. (Resident identifiers are #34 and #42.) Findings include: Resident #34 Review on 6/30/26 of Resident #34's physician's orders revealed an order for IV Cefazolin (antibiotic) 2 grams every 8 hours for left knee infection and orders to maintain a PICC line. Observation on 06/30/2026 at approximately 1:56 p.m. with Staff B (Licensed Practical Nurse) during Resident #34's medication administration revealed Staff B entered the room wearing a gown and no gloves, Staff B was holding a pair of clean gloves, an IV antibiotic bag, saline flushes, alcohol wipes, and a pack of IV tubing. Staff B placed these items on a dresser, the saline flush fell onto the floor. Staff B picked it up with an ungloved hand and placed it on top of the dresser, Staff B moved Resident #34's belongings from the bedside table onto the dresser. Staff B donned…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and review, at least annually, the facility's water management program, which had the potential to effect the facility census of 69 residents who resided at the facility.Findings include:Review on 7/24/25 of the facility's Water Management Program revealed that the facility had identified multiple at-risk areas in the facility, including water heaters, expansion tanks in the maintenance office; pipes, valves and fittings in the bathrooms, shower rooms and kitchen; faucets, aerators, faucet flow restrictors in the bathrooms/kitchen; shower heads and hoses in the first/second floor shower rooms; air washer and humidifiers in the second floor resident rooms; eyewash stations in the laundry, shower, chemical rooms, housekeeping closets and shower rooms; ice machines in the kitchen and 1st and 2nd floors; CPAP machines, bubblers for oxygen, nebulizers in the resident rooms; hydrotherapy equipment, heater-cooler units in the therapy office; water filters in the employee lounge and the [brand name…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that equipment was clean and sanitary for 1 of 1 kitchen observed and handling of food for 1 of 2 kitchenettes observed. Findings include: Observation on 7/22/2025 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of the ice machine in the main kitchen with Staff B (Food Service Director) revealed a greenish brown film located in the interior of the ice machine below the ice cube metal grid.Interview on 7/22/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m with Staff B confirmed the above observation.Review on 7/24/25 of the manufacturer's instructions of the facility's ice machine revealed, .General : Clean and sanitize the ice machine every 6 months for efficient operation. If the ice machine requires more frequent cleaning and sanitizing, consult a qualified service company to test water quality and recommend water treatment .Observation on 7/22/25 at approximately 8:40 a.m. of the first floor satellite kitchenette refrigerator with Staff B revealed 5 supplemental shakes with a hand written date of 7/20/25.Interview on 7/22/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-14 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 provide the necessary care to ensure that a resident's ability to communicate was maintained with a communication device for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for communication in a final sample of 19 residents (Resident Identifier is #40). Findings include: Interview on 5/13/24 at approximately 12:10 p.m. with Resident #40's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) revealed that Resident #40 has difficulty with communication due to his/her advanced Parkinson's Disease and was admitted in March 2024 with a communication board that he/she used to allow for easier communication. Resident #40's DPOA stated that he/she has not seen the communication board since shortly after admission. Interview on 5/14/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff M (Registered Nurse) revealed that he/she did recall Resident #40 being admitted with a communication device that he/she used at home. Staff M confirmed that it could not be located at the time of the interview. Interview on 5/14/24 at approximately 8:35 a.m. with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive appropriate treatment to maintain mobility for 1 resident reviewed for limited range of motion in a final sample of 19 (Resident Identifier is #28). Findings include: Review on 5/14/24 of Resident #28's care plan revealed: Interventions for Preventing Pressure Injury, dated 3/19/24, Place face cloth rolled into R [right] hand, change with care and re-apply should resident remove. Observation on 5/13/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. revealed Resident #28 was asleep in bed with his/her right hand clenched. There was no rolled face cloth in his/her right hand. Observation on 5/13/24 at approximately 12:15 p.m. revealed Resident #28 was up in his/her chair in the dining room. His/Her right hand was clenched. There was no rolled face cloth in his/her right hand. Observation on 5/14/24 at approximately 11:00 a.m. revealed Resident #28 was up in his/her chair in the hallway. His/her right hand was tightly clenched with no rolled face cloth in his/her right hand.…
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 · D2024-05-14 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an ongoing collaboration and communication process was established between the nursing home and the hospice company for 1 out of 1 hospice residents reviewed in a final sample of 19 residents (Resident Identifier is #6). Findings include: Review on 5/13/24 of Resident #6's Medical Record revealed they had been admitted to hospice services as of 4/26/24. Review on 5/14/24 of Resident #6's Hospice Team Care Plan as of 5/3/24 revealed the visit frequency for aide to be 3 x [times] week x [for] 9 weeks. Review on 5/14/24 of Resident #6's Hospice Aide Weekly Visit Record revealed the following: Week of 4/29/24-5/3/24 had one aide visit that was documented on 5/2/24; Week of 5/6/24-5/10/24 had one aide visit that was documented on 5/9/24. Interview on 5/14/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff N (Unit Manager) confirmed the above finding. Staff N stated that there was no actual schedule for the facility staff to know when the Hospice Aide is coming in to see Resident #6. Interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-14 · 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
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 facility policy on contact precautions to reduce transmission of communicable diseases in 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Transmission Based Precautions in a final sample of 19 residents. Findings include: Standards: Per Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Follow specific recommendations when treating a patient with confirmed or suspected C. Difficile infection .When entering the room of a patient with C. difficile, the priority should be to ensure glove use (in addition to a gown) and proper technique when removing gloves to minimize the risk of self-contamination. (Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/clean-hands/hcp/clinical-safety/ on 5/16/24). Observation on 5/13/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of Staff H (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) revealed them entering a Transmission Based Precaution (TBP) room [ROOM NUMBER]-1 without donning a gown and/or gloves. Further observation revealed that Staff H was administering…
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 · B2026-07-02 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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, the facility failed to provide residents with written bed-hold notice at the time of transfer for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. (Resident identifiers are #4 and #23.) Findings include: Resident #4 Review on 7/2/26 of Resident #4's progress notes from March 2026 to June 2026 revealed that Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled services. Further review revealed that Resident #4 was transferred to the hospital on 3/9/26, 4/28/26, and 6/25/26. There was no documentation indicating that a written bed hold notice was provided to Resident #4 at the time of transfer to the hospital. Interview on 7/2/26 at approximately 11:13 a.m. with Resident #4 confirmed that they did not receive a written bed hold notice in regards to the above mentioned hospital transfers. Resident #23 Review on 7/2/26 of Resident # 23's provider note, dated 6/9/26, revealed that Resident #23 was sent to the hospital for evaluation. There was no documentation indicating…
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 · B2024-05-14 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 notify the resident and/or residents representative of care plan meetings for 2 residents reviewed for care plans in a sample of 19 residents (Resident Identifiers #16 and #40). Findings include: Resident #16 Interview on 5/13/24 at approximately 11:50 a.m. with Resident #16's activated Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) revealed he/she has not been invited to any care plan meetings for over 6 months. The DPOA would like to be in attendance to share thoughts about the care of Resident #16. Review on 5/14/24 of Resident #16's Medical Record revealed no documentation of care plan meeting notifications to Resident #16's DPOA. Interview on 5/14/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with Staff J (Social Worker) confirmed that their was no documentation that could be provided showing Resident #16 and/or their DPOA were invited to or attended a care plan meeting for the time period of December 2023 through May 2024. Resident #40 Interview on 5/13/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m. with Resident #40's activated DPOA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RICHARD COURVILLE 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST, AS AMENDED | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 08/17/2024 |
| COURVILLE, ADAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 08/17/2024 |
| COURVILLE, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 08/17/2024 |
| COURVILLE, RYAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 07/28/2019 |
| THE COURVILLE COMPANY INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/10/1980 |
| AUJLA, JATINDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/05/2022 |
| DIDOMENICO, PAULETTE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/18/2013 |
| EKBERG, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/27/2025 |
| TCN REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/29/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 305037. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-02, 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.