Edgewood Centre (the)
928 South Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801 · For profit - Corporation · 156 certified beds · (603) 436-0099 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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.0% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.7% | 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 | 6.0% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.2% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.4% | 19.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.5% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.8% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.9% | 83.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 22.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 13.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.38 | 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.
57.3% 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 321 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 81.1% 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 148 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 57.3%CMS range 52.5–62.4 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 7.8–13.0 | 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 | 81.1% | 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 | 65.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 69.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 99.0% | 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 | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.7–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 156 beds and averages 139.9 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to determine if a resident's request for rehabilitation services was necessary or appropriate for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Specialized Rehabilitative or Restorative Services in a final sample of 28 residents (Resident identifier is #57). Findings include: Interview on 6/3/25 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Resident #57's Durable Power of Attorney revealed that he/she had requested Physical Therapy (PT) services because of right shoulder pain. Review on 6/3/25 of Resident #57's Social/Psychosocial note, dated 4/9/25, revealed a meeting was held with the resident, a family member of the resident, the facility administrator, a nurse manager and social services. The note contained the following: [names of family and resident omitted] would like to have a PT eval [evaluation] for [name omitted]'s shoulder, which is causing [pronoun admitted ] a great deal of pain. Interview on 6/5/25 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff C (Rehabilitation Manager) revealed that he/she was not aware of the DPOA's request…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's medical records were complete and accurate for 3 of 28 residents in a final sample of 28 residents. (Resident identifier are #44, #46, and #68.) Findings include: Resident #46 Review on 6/3/25 of Resident #46's May and June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's orders: Enteral Feed Order two times a day for nutrition, . Nocturnal feeding of Glucerna 1.5 at 60 ml (milliliters)/hr (hour) x 12 hours (up at 6:30 p.m., down at 6:30 a.m., start date 2/26/25 and D/C date 5/22/25 Enteral Feed: Glucerna 1.5 at 50 ml/hr continuous. Up at 6:00 a.m., down at 6:00 p.m. Total volume to be administered daily: 873 mls., . start date 5/30/25. Further review of Resident #46's MAR revealed there was no ml recorded on the following dates: May 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21 June 1, 2, and 3 Interview on 6/4/25 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff A (Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist) confirmed the above findings. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are offered the COVID-19 and are educated regarding the benefits and risks and potential side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Resident Identifiers are #46 and #124). Findings include: Review on 6/4/25 of the current CDC immunization guidelines retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html revealed People ages 65 years and older .are up to date when you have received: 2 doses of any 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine 6 months apart. Resident #46 Review on 6/4/25 of Resident #46's vaccination records revealed Resident #46 received the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 on 11/18/24. There was no documentation of Resident #46 being offered or educated about the next dose recommendations. Resident #124 Review on 6/4/25 of Resident #124's vaccination records revealed the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was administered on 10/5/2024. There was no documentation of Resident #46 being offered or educated about the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were stored in a separately locked, permanently affixed storage compartment in 2 of 2 medication rooms observed, and that the facility failed to ensure that medications were appropriately disposed of in 2 of 3 medication administrations observed. Findings include: Observation on 3/12/24 of [NAME] 1 cart at approximately 8:15 a.m. revealed Staff I (Registered Nurse) dropped one capsule of Colace (Bowel Medication) on the medication cart, then picked it up and threw it in the trash barrel attached to the medication cart. Interview on 3/12/24 at approximately 8:15 a.m. with Staff I confirmed above findings. Observation on 3/12/24 of [NAME] 2 cart at approximately 8:20 a.m. revealed Staff J (Registered Nurse) dropped one tablet (Multivitamin) on the medication cart and then disposed of it in the open trash barrel on the side of the medication cart. Interview on 3/125/24 at approximately 8:20 a.m. with Staff J confirmed the above findings. Interview on 3/14/24…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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 make a Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) referral for a resident with a newly evident mental disorder for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR in a final survey sample of 27 residents (Resident Identifier is #26). Findings include: Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #26's medical record revealed that resident was admitted to the facility on 11/2023 without having a diagnosis of a serious mental illness. Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #26's Level I PASARR form (completed on 11/22/23) revealed: Section 2: Screening for Mental Illness (MI), No was checked. Section 3: Screening for Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability (ID/DD), No was checked. Section 4: Screening for Related Condition (RC), No was checked. Section 5: Undiagnosed Condition, No was checked. Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #26's Psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation dated 12/6/23 revealed a new diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that Resident #26 was started on a new medication for…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) screening was done for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR in a final sample of 27 residents (Resident Identifier is #111). Findings include: Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #111's medical record revealed that Resident #111 was admitted to the facility on 2/2024 with a known diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #111s initial PASARR dated 2/15/24 revealed that in Section II titled PASRR Level I Screening for Mental Illness (MI) was answered NO to indicate that Resident #111 did not have a diagnosis of severe mental illness. Therefore, the facility failed to refer the resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for evaluation and determination. Interview on 3/13/24 at 1:35 p.m. with Staff R (Director of Social Services) confirmed that Resident #111 had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder upon admission and the facility did not refer the resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for evaluation and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing to provide assistance with breakfast on 1 of 3 units observed (South Unit). Findings include: Interview on 3/12/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with Staff K (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) revealed that the breakfast meal arrives to the unit at approximately 8:15 a.m. Staff K revealed that there are 14 residents on the unit that require total assistance with meals and other residents require cues at meals. Further interview revealed that there are usually 4 LNA's on the unit to assist residents with breakfast. Observation on 3/12/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. during breakfast dining on the unit revealed 7 resident meal trays remained on the meal truck and had not been given to the residents. Interview on 3/12/24 at approximately 9:35 a.m. with Staff M (LNA) revealed that there are not enough staff on the South Unit to assist all the residents that require assistance with breakfast timely and it was not uncommon for residents to be receiving breakfast after…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation; and determine that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained for 2 of 2 narcotic books reviewed. Findings Include: East Unit Medication Cart Observation on 3/12/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. of the East Unit Narcotic/Controlled Substance Log - Shift Count revealed missing staff signatures for the following dates: 1/8/24 (day nurse coming on duty), 1/24/24 (night nurse coming on duty), 1/28/24 (day nurse coming on duty & night nurse coming off duty), 2/14/24 (night nurse going off duty), 2/27/24 (night nurse coming on duty), 2/28/24 (night nurse going off duty), 3/3/24 (night nurse going off duty), 3/7/24 (night nurse going off duty), and 3/12/24 (night nurse coming on duty). Interview on 3/12/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Staff P…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents on antipsychotic medications were monitored for side effects for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 27 residents (Resident Identifiers are #12 and #42). Findings include: Resident #12 Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #12's March 2024's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's order: Seroquel Oral Tablet 25 mg [milligrams] [Quetiapine Fumarate] Give 12.5 mg by mouth two times a day for Major Depressive Disorder delusional/agitation, Start Date 9/21/23. Review on 3/14/24 of Resident #12's Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) revealed that the last one completed with Resident #12 was dated 8/21/23. Interview on 3/14/24 at approximately 10:45 a.m. with Staff C (Assistant Director of Nursing) revealed that the AIMS test should be completed every 6 months when residents are on antipsychotic medications. Further interview revealed that the facility does not have a policy for when AIMS testing should be done.…
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 · D2024-03-14 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to facility established infection prevention procedures for 1 of 4 residents reviewed with catheters and for transmission based precautions for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for infection control in a final sample of 27 residents (Resident Identifiers are #75, #172, and #174). Findings include:Resident #174 Record review on 3/12/24 of Resident #174's medical record revealed the resident had a Foley catheter. Observation on 3/12/24 at 12:38 p.m. of Resident #174 revealed them in their room seated in a chair with an uncovered catheter bag and tubing resting on the floor. Observation on 3/13/24 at approximately 12:30 p.m. revealed Resident #174 in their room seated in a chair with an uncovered catheter bag hanging from the heating unit. Interview on 3/13/24 at approximately 12:35 p.m. with Staff S (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed the finding. Review on 3/18/24 of the facility policy titled, Emptying Foley Catheter Drainage Bag, revealed: Never allow the drainage tube to touch the floor .Bacteria can very…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered and/or provided education on the risks and benefits of the Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccination for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations (Resident identifiers are #29 and #107). Findings include: Resident #29 Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #29's medical record revealed that Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed that Resident #29 had not received an influenza vaccination and had received Pneumovax 23 prior to admission. Interview on 3/14/24 at approximately 11 a.m. with Staff C (Infection Preventionist) revealed that Resident #29 had not been offered or educated on the risks/benefits of the Influenza vaccine or any other additional pneumonia vaccines. Resident #107 Review on 3/13/24 of Resident #107's medical record revealed that Resident #107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed that Resident #107 had not received a pneumonia…
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 · Ecited before2023-02-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled with an open date or use by date for medications found in 2 out of 3 medication carts and 1 out of 2 medication rooms observed; and failed to ensure medications were secured on 1 out of 3 nursing units observed (Resident identifiers are #15, #19, #26, #31, #82 and #87). Findings include: Observation on [DATE] at approximately 11:45 a.m. on Resident #15's night stand revealed 2 opened bottles of eye drops. Interview on [DATE] at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Staff C (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that the eye drops are routinely left on the resident's nightstand. [Pronoun omitted] gets eye drops every hour, so we leave them there. Observation on [DATE] at approximately 7:37 a.m. during medication administration on the East Unit Medication Cart (1 and 3) revealed the following: Resident #26's opened vial of insulin, labeled with an opened expiration date of [DATE]. 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 · D2023-02-17 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow manufacturer's instructions for medication administration for 1 out of 1 inhaled medications observed and failed to follow physician's orders for 1 out of 1 Gastrostomy tube (G tube) medication administration observed (Resident identifiers are #15 and #21). Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Resident #15 Observation on 2/15/23 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Staff C (Registered Nurse) revealed Staff C administered the following medications through Resident #15's G tube without flushing before and after…
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 · C2024-03-14 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing data for 1 of 2 days observed (3/13/24). Interview on 3/14/24 at 7:37 a.m. with Staff G (Staff Development Coordinator) revealed that the daily nurse staffing data was posted in 2 places in the facility, on the bulletin board in the hallway leading into the [NAME] Unit and in the window in the entrance way of the facility. Observation on 3/14/24 at 7:40 a.m. of the bulletin board in the hallway leading into the [NAME] Unit revealed the facility nurse staffing data dated 3/12/24. Interview on 3/14/24 at 7:41 a.m. with Staff G confirmed the above. Observation on 3/14/24 at 7:42 a.m. of the entrance way to the facility revealed the daily nurse staffing data was taped to the window. Observation further revealed that the daily nurse staffing data was dated 3/11/24. Interview on 3/14/24 at 7:43 a.m. with Staff G confirmed the above.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GREEN TREE HEALTH MANAGEMENT — 8 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDGEWOOD NH OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/01/2022 |
| DASAY 2019 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 16% | since 08/01/2022 |
| GAMTA 2020 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 16% | since 08/01/2022 |
| SJ HEALTHCARE CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 25% | since 08/01/2022 |
| STERN, AHARON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| STERN, SIMON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| ROBILLARD, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/17/2025 |
| ADS CAPITAL TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| PC8 CAPITAL GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| SJ FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 $2.6M 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 305022. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.