Birch Healthcare Center
62 Rochester Hill Road, Rochester, NH 03867 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 79 certified beds · (603) 335-3955 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $10,655 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-16)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- 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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 improved from 1 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 | 10.7% | 22.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.7% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.9% | 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 | 3.6% | 4.4% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 17.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.3% | 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 | 5.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.5% | 25.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.2% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.3% | 83.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.0% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.1% | 13.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.23 | 1.64 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 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.
60.6% 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 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 56 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% 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 | 60.6%CMS range 50.6–68.8 | 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 | 10.9%CMS range 8.2–14.7 | 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 | 55.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 39.3% | 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 | 48.2% | 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 | 95.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.2% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 4.1–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 79 beds and averages 69.3 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.38 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-04-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff use equipment properly during transfers, resulting in a fall with a fracture for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident Identifier #1). Finding include: Review on 4/16/24 of Resident #1's nurse's note dated 3/25/24 revealed that Staff A (Registered Nurse) heard a loud noise in Resident #1's room. Upon entering, Resident #1 was on the floor. The Licensed Nursing Assistants (LNAs) informed Staff A that Resident #1 slid off the Hoyer pad while being lifted. Resident #1 was complaining of back pain. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. Resident #1 returned to the facility from the hospital and the hospital nurse reported that Resident #1 had a first lumbar (L1) fracture. Review on 4/16/24 of Resident #1's diagnostic imaging reports from the hospital dated 3/25/24 revealed that the indication for the diagnostic imaging was for fall and trauma. Further review of the diagnostic imaging reports revealed that Resident #1 was found to have an acute L1…
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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to document that the resident and/or the resident's representative was fully informed of the risk and benefits of psychotropic medications for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifier is #10.) Findings include:Review on 9/18/25 of Resident #10's diagnosis list revealed that he/she had diagnoses of Dementia, Depression and Cognitive communication deficit.Review on 9/18/25 of Resident #10's physician orders revealed Resident #10 was prescribed the following psychotropic medications:Trazodone HCL (hydrochloride) Oral tablet 100 MG (milligrams) Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for insomnia, order date was 6/24/25Risperidone Oral tablet 0.5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Depression, order date was 6/25/25Sertraline HCL Oral tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Depression, order date was 6/25/25. Review on 9/18/25 of Resident #10's medical record revealed that there was no evidence Resident #10 was informed…
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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse no later than 24 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #67).Findings include:Interview on 9/16/25 at approximately 9:22 a.m. with Resident #67 revealed that he/she had an alleged verbal and physical altercation with Resident #68 on 9/14/25 after Bingo. Resident #68 grabbed Resident #67's upper arm. Resident #68 swore at Resident #67 and told them to die. Resident #67 said they reported the incident on 9/15/2025 to Staff F (Rehabilitation Director). Interview on 9/18/25 at 9:25 a.m. with Staff F revealed that Resident #67 informed them about the verbal and physical altercation. Staff F revealed that he/she notified Staff E (Social Service Director) and Staff G (Administrator). Interview on 9/18/25 at 9:35 a.m. with Staff G confirmed that they became aware of the resident to resident incident on 9/15/25. Staff G revealed that the allegation of abuse was not reported to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-18 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such 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 residents received scheduled medications on days that they attended dialysis for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis in a final sample of 28 residents (Resident Identifier is #6).Findings include: Interview on 9/16/25 at approximately 1:41 p.m. with Resident #6 revealed that he/she attended dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for a diagnosis of Stage 5 Kidney Disease. Interview on 9/17/25 at approximately 2:00 p.m. with Staff B (Medication Nursing Assistant) revealed that Doxazosin medication was not given on days of dialysis. Review on 9/18/25 of Resident #6's medication administration record (MAR) revealed an order for Doxazosin Mesylate tablet 1 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth in the afternoon for HTN [Hypertension], dated of 6/5/25. Resident #6's MAR revealed that his/her Doxazosin was not given on the following dates: 8/6/25, 8/8/25, 8/10/25, 8/13/25, 8/15/25, 8/18/25, 8/22/25, 8/25/25, 8/27/25, 9/1/25, 9/3/25, and 9/17/25. Interview on 9/18/25 at approximately 11:16 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 · Dcited before2024-08-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure open injectable medications were labeled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in 1 out of 2 medication carts observed. Findings include: Observation on 8/27/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of the orange medication cart on the B wing revealed an open multiple-dose vial of Lantus (Insulin Glargine) Solution without an open date and/or an open expiration/discard date that was in use for Resident #50. Interview on 8/27/24 at 8:40 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed the above finding. Review on 8/27/24 of the Lantus (Insulin Glargine) manufacturer's instructions revealed: The Lantus vials you are using should be thrown away after 28 days, even if it has insulin left in it.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-29 · 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 record review, observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow Center For Disease Control (CDC) guidance for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident Identifier #55) and the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration for 3 of 5 residents observed (Resident Identifiers are #21, #44 and #49). Findings Include: Resident #55: Review on 8/27/24 of Resident #55's medical record revealed they had an order for EBP for medication received through a peripheral line and an infected wound. Observation on 8/27/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. of Resident #55 revealed an EBP sign and PPE inside the resident's room. Staff B (Licensed Nurse Aide) was observed assisting Resident #55 with transfers and positioning without wearing a gown or gloves. Interview on 8/27/24 at approximately 11:35 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above finding and revealed that they were aware that Resident #55 was on EBP. Review on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-26 · 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 interview and record reviews, it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders related to notifying the provider when blood sugar level was above 400 milligram/deciliter (mg/dl) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident Identifier is #38). Findings include: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th edition 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 . Review on 7/25/23 of Resident #38's active physician orders revealed the following orders: 1. Insulin Lispro 100 units/milliliters (ml) inject 10 units subcutaneously before meals for a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type 2, notify the physician or nurse practitioner for blood sugar levels less than 60 or greater than 400 mg/dl with a start date of 6/6/23, scheduled for 7:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. 2. Insulin…
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 before2023-07-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to store refrigerated medications within required temperatures per manufacturer's specification for 1 of 1 medication room observed (Birch Unit, A-Wing, medication room). Findings include: Observation on 7/24/23 at 8:45 a.m. of the medication room refrigerator revealed 2 unopened vials of Novolog insulin, 2 unopened vials of Humalog insulin, an unopened Levemir insulin pen, an unopened Lantus insulin pen, and an unopened Trulicity insulin pen stored up against an ice-frosted wall in the refrigerator. Review on 7/24/23 of manufacturer specifications for Novolog, Humalog, Levemir, Lantus, and Trulicity for insulin vials and pens indicates to store unopened items refrigerated between 36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 46 °F. Review on 7/24/23 of the medication room Refrigeration Temperature Log revealed no temperature recordings on July 22 and 23, 2023, and temperatures were out of required range on 6/2/23 (34 degrees °F), 6/23/23 (34° F), 5/12/23 (32° F), and 5/14/23 (34° F), with no follow-up…
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 · D2023-07-26 · 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, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served in a sanitary environment in 1 of 1 main kitchens observed. Findings include: Observation on 7/24/23 at 8:44 a.m. in the main kitchen with Staff A (Food Service Director) revealed that the range hood was last inspected on 11/20/22 with a next service date of 180 days (approximately 5/20/23). Further inspection revealed dust particles encapsulating the light fixtures under the hood. In addition, all fire suppression discharge nozzles under the hood had dust particles on them. Interview on 7/24/23 at 8:48 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings. Review on 7/27/23 of the facility's policy titled, Sanitation Inspection, last revised 3/20/23 revealed: All food service areas shall be kept clean, sanitary, free from litter, and rubbish, and protected from rodents, roaches, flies, and other insects. Review on 7/27/23 of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Food Code, dated 2022, retrieved from: https://www.fda.gov/media/164194/download, revealed .…
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 · D2023-07-26 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a safe and sanitary environment in 7 of 41 resident rooms observed on the Birch Unit. Findings include: Birch Unit Observation on 7/24/23 at approximately 11:30 a.m. revealed the following: Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] the bathroom door had large black scrapes along the bottom of the entire door that went up approximately 2 feet high. The bathroom door frame also had dark black marks from the bottom of the frame to approximately 12 inches high. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had approximately 10 white drywall patches on the wall behind the television. Each patch was approximately 2 inches by (x) 5 inches. Further inspection revealed a 12 inch x 2 inch large hole behind bed A. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] the bathroom had black writing approximately 4 feet high on the wall opposite the toilet. This area was approximately 3 inches x 2 inches. The bathroom door had large black scrapes along the bottom of the entire…
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
$10,655 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,655 — penalty dated 2024-04-16
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WHITE MOUNTAIN PEAK HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/19/2020 |
| NHOC LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| BLACK MOUNTAIN II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/20/2026 |
| PR NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/20/2026 |
| RR NH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/20/2026 |
| WMP HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/19/2020 |
| AGGCP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| KAMNA HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| WMP HC LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| GOLDSTEIN, AVROHOM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| HALBERSTAM, MIRIAM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| HALBERSTAM, MOSHE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| STEVENSON, SEAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| 603 HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2026 |
| RIZKALLA HANNA, MAGUED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2025 |
| SUAZO, KATELYN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2025 |
| KANSAS SNF HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| MAD FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| NATR TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| RARMNA HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| RATR TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| RNR HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| WETR TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/19/2020 |
| RAUSMAN, PHILIP | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/20/2026 |
| RAUSMAN, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/20/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
17 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.5M 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 305081. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.