Rochester Manor
40 Whitehall Road, Rochester, NH 03867 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 108 certified beds · (603) 332-7711 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 32.9% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.5% | 13.7% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.9% | 17.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.8% | 19.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.4% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.1% | 17.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.4% | 83.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.3% | 22.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.9% | 13.4% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.99 | 1.64 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 1.87 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
53.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 117 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.2% 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 84 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% 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 | 53.9%CMS range 43.9–62.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.7–15.8 | 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 | 70.2% | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 60.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 4.5–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.77 | 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 108 beds and averages 83.0 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 25 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.555 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.36 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-03-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had adequate devices to prevent a fall, resulting in a fracture, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accident hazards in a final sample of 29 residents (Resident identifier is #86). Finding include: Interview on 3/22/23 at 11:03 a.m. with Resident #86 revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility for skilled nursing services on 3/2/23. Resident #86 stated that upon admission, he/she was asked if he/she needed bed rails. Resident #86 stated Absolutely, I'm weak and have a history of falls. Further interview with Resident #86 revealed that bed rails were never installed on their bed. Resident #86 stated that on 3/5/23 while care was being provided, he/she rolled to the right and fell out of bed and landed on his/her right side of his/her roommates intravenous (IV) pole. Resident #86 stated that he/she broke multiple ribs during that fall. Review on 3/24/23 of Resident #86's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · 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 injury of unknown source to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for neglect. (Resident identifier is #1).Findings include:Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's progress note, dated 12/8/25 at 11:26 a.m., revealed a note by Staff D (Physician Assistant) that read, Chief complaint: Nursing request eval [evaluation] for LUE [Left Upper Extremity] swelling. New LUE edema exam. Most consistent with dependent edema in setting of severe hypoalbuminemia, as well as patient reported sleeping on left side. Though some of the swelling to LUE does not appear to be pitting, and there is minimal erythema/warmth and slight tenderness. Doubt cellulitis though there is some concern for LUE DVT [Deep Vein Thrombosis]. Will transfer emergently to hospital for Doppler study rule out LUE DVT.Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's hospital Patient Visit Information, dated 12/8/25 at 11:02 a.m., revealed, You were seen today for: Closed fracture of radial head. elbow fracture. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown source for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for neglect. (Resident Identifier is #1). Findings include:Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's progress note, dated 12/8/25 at 11:26 a.m. revealed, a note by Staff D (Physician Assistant) that read, Chief complaint: Nursing request eval [evaluation] for LUE [Left Upper Extremity] swelling. New LUE edema exam. Most consistent with dependent edema in setting of severe hypoalbuminemia, as well as patient reported sleeping on left side. Though some of the swelling to LUE does not appear to be pitting, and there is minimal erythema/warmth and slight tenderness. Doubt cellulitis though there is some concern for LUE DVT [Deep Vein Thrombosis]. Will transfer emergently to hospital for Doppler study rule out LUE DVT.Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's hospital Patient Visit Information, dated 12/8/25 at 11:02 a.m., revealed, You were seen today for: Closed fracture of radial head. elbow fracture. Interview on 1/14/26 at 12:30 p.m.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide notice to the resident or the resident representative(s) of transfer and bed hold for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident identifier is #1).Findings include:Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's progress note dated 12/8/25 with an effective time of 11:26 a.m. revealed a note by Staff D (Physician Assistant) that read, Chief complaint: Nursing request eval [evaluation] for LUE [Left upper extremity] swelling. New LUE edema exam. Most consistent with dependent edema in setting of severe hypoalbuminemia, as well as patient reported sleeping on left side. Though some of the swelling to LUE does not appear to be pitting, and there is minimal erythema/warmth and slight tenderness. Doubt cellulitis though there is some concern for LUE DVT [deep vein thrombosis]. Will transfer emergently to hospital for Doppler study rule out LUE DVT.Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's hospital Patient Visit Information from the local hospital, dated 12/8/25 at 11:02 a.m., revealed, You were seen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · 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 resident medical records were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 4 medical records reviewed. (Resident Identifier is #1.)Findings Include:Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's progress note, dated 12/8/25 at 11:26 a.m., revealed a note by Staff D (Physician Assistant) that read, Chief complaint: Nursing request eval [evaluation] for LUE [Left upper extremity] swelling. New LUE edema exam. Most consistent with dependent edema in setting of severe hypoalbuminemia, as well as patient reported sleeping on left side. Though some of the swelling to LUE does not appear to be pitting, and there is minimal erythema/warmth and slight tenderness. Doubt cellulitis though there is some concern for LUE DVT [deep vein thrombosis]. Will transfer emergently to hospital for Doppler study rule out LUE DVT.Review on 1/14/26 of Resident #1's hospital Patient Visit Information from the local hospital, dated 12/8/25 at 11:02 a.m., revealed, You were seen today for: Closed fracture of radial head. elbow…
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 · D2025-06-06 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 follow it's grievance policy for tracking, investigating, and prompt resolution of grievances for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for grievances (Resident identifiers is #4). Findings include: Interview on 6/4/25 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Resident #4 revealed that Resident #23 wanders into their room frequently throughout the day and evening and has for some time now. Resident #4 stated they have voiced this concern to staff and nothing has been done to help keep Resident #23 out of their room. Interview on 6/6/25 at approximately 12:15 p.m. with Staff J (Infection Preventionist) stated that on 5/12/25 they spoke to Resident #4 and their roommate regarding Resident #23 wandering into their room. Staff J stated that this information was written up on a grievance form and brought to the managers morning meeting on 5/13/25. Interview on 6/6/25 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff D (Administrator) revealed that the grievance from Resident #4 on 5/12/25 was not logged on the Grievance/Complaint…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-06 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 thoroughly investigate after a resident's fall for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for falls in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident Identifier is #82). Findings include: Review on 6/6/25 of the facility's policy titled Abuse Prohibition revised on 10/24/22 revealed, .The Center will implement an abuse prohibition program through the following: .Investigation of incidents and allegations; . Reporting of incidents, investigations, and Center response to the results of their investigations .10. At monthly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings, review all allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of patient property, and exploitation that were reported to the state to: 10.1 Analyze occurrences to determine what changes are needed, if any, to prevent further occurrences; 10.2 Identify situations which a potential for risk; and 10.3 Determine what preventative measures will be implemented by staff. Review on 6/6/25 of Resident #82's Progress Note dated 4/24/25 at 5:22 p.m. and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise a care plan for 1 resident in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifiers is #23). Findings include: Interview on 6/4/25 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Resident #4 revealed that Resident #23 wanders into their room frequently in the evening and night for some time now. Interview on 6/6/25 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Staff E (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated that Resident #23 will wander into Resident #4's room sometimes. Staff E said the staff will redirect Resident #23 when this occurs. Interview on 6/6/25 at approximately 11:55 a.m. with Staff F (Licensed Nursing Assistant) stated that Resident #23 will wander into Resident #4's room. Staff F said that staff will redirect Resident #23 with items to fidget with and will also try to engage her in activities. Review on 6/5/25 of Resident #23's progress notes revealed the following: On 4/11/25, Resident #23 required frequent redirection as he/she enters other resident's rooms and touches other resident's walkers; On 5/1/25,…
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 · D2025-06-06 · 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 review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for medication administration in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident Identifiers is #77). Findings include: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2021. Page 614 .It is essential to verify the accuracy of every medication you give to your patients with the patient's order. If the medication order is incomplete, incorrect, or inappropriate, or if there is a discrepancy between the original order and the information on the MAR [Medication Administration Record]. consult with the health care provider. Do not give a medication until you are certain that you can follow the seven rights of medication administration . Page 672 .seven rights of medication administration include right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, right time, right documentation and right indication . [NAME], [NAME]; [NAME], [NAME]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-06 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 trauma survivors have interventions identified to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for mood and behaviors in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifier is #4). Findings include: Review on 6/5/25 of Resident #4's Psychiatric note, dated 5/13/25, revealed the following: .[Pronoun omitted] was referred for psychiatric medication management services for depression, anxiety, and PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] .[Name omitted] reports ongoing depressive and anxiety symptoms related to situational stressors .[Pronoun omitted] has also had a difficulty with several residents here and feels uncomfortable around them .[Name omitted] reports chronic nightmares and poor sleep related to childhood molestation .PTSD based symptoms nightmares .Chronic PTSD: chronic nightmares and flashbacks related to childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by her brother, [Name omitted]. Appears to have relational difficulties related to her…
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 · D2025-06-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures for 1 of 1 resident observed for wound care in the final survey sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifier is #66). Findings include Observation on 6/4/25 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse) performing wound care for Resident #66 revealed the following: Staff A entered Resident #66's room and placed wound care supplies on a sterile field on the bedside table. Staff A pulled a pair of scissors out of his/her nursing scrub top pocket and placed it onto the bedside table without disinfecting/cleaning the scissors. Right great toe metatarsal wound care: Staff A donned gloves then proceeded to cut Resident #66's right foot dressing off with the unclean scissors and placed them back onto the bedside table with the wound care supplies. After removing the old dressing, Staff A cleaned the right great toe metatarsal wound with normal saline. Staff A used the unclean scissors to cut the new foam dressing 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 · Dcited before2024-04-03 · 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 store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Findings include: Review on 4/4/24 of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code dated 2017 retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/FDA-food-code/food-code-2017 revealed the following: .Annex 3, Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines . Chapter 3 Food .3-305.11 Food Storage .FOOD shall be protected from contamination by storing the FOOD: . On-premises preparation .(D) A date marking system that meets the criteria stated in (A) and (B) of this section may include: (1) Using a method approved by the regulatory authority for refrigerated, ready-to-eat time/temperature control for safety food that is frequently rewrapped, such as lunchmeat or a roast, or for which date marking is impractical, such as soft serve mix or milk in a dispensing machine; (2) Marking the date or day of preparation, with a procedure to discard the food on or before the last date…
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 · D2023-03-24 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide privacy of medical records on 1 of 4 units (Resident identifiers are #8 and #17). Findings include: Observations on 3/22/23 at 11:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and again at 2:00 p.m., revealed Resident #8's and Resident #17's Radiology Exam Order containing Resident #8's and Resident #17's name, date of birth , and image results stored face-up on the top counter of the nurse station viewable to unauthorized personnel on B-Wing. Observation on 3/22/23 at approximately 2:00 p.m., a document titled Rochester Manor Census List for B Wing Rooms 15-28 revealed full resident names, diet types and dietary notes stored face-up on the top counter of the nurse station viewable to unauthorized personnel. Interview on 3/22/23 at approximately 2:15 p.m. with Staff D (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed staff utilize the counter for medical record documents due to lack of space. Interview on 3/22/23 at approximately 2:20 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the observations. 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 · Dcited before2023-03-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to store food according to acceptable standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness in the main kitchen and 1 of 2 unit kitchenettes observed. Findings include: Review on 3/24/23 of the Food Code U.S. Public Health Service 2017 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/FDA-food-code/food-code-2017 revealed the following: .Annex 3, Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines . Chapter 3 Food . Page 458 Manufacturer's use-by dates It is not the intent of this provision to give a product an extended shelf life beyond that intended by the manufacturer. Manufacturers assign a date to products for various reasons, and spoilage may or may not occur before pathogen growth renders the product unsafe. Most, but not all, sell-by or use-by dates are voluntarily placed on food packages the manufacturer's use-by date is its recommendation for using the product while its quality is at its best. Although it is a guide for quality, it could be based…
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 · D2023-03-24 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program which included a system to track and monitor antibiotic use during 2 of 6 months reviewed. Findings include: Review on 3/24/23 of the facility's Infection Control Monthly Line Listing for January and February 2023 revealed tracking for the use of antibiotics for 14 residents. The line listings did not indicated clinical signs and symptoms to determine if the residents met the criteria for the use of antibiotics. For the month of January 2023 there were 5 residents receiving antibiotics (3-urinary tract infections (UTI), 1-osteomyelitis, and 1- hordeolum). For the month of February 2023 there were 9 residents receiving antibiotics (2-c-difficile, 3-pneumonia, 1-UTI, 1-surgical wound, 1- cellulitis, and 1-conjunctivitis). Interview on 3/24/23 at 9:10 a.m. with Staff B (Infection Preventionist) and Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the line lists for January and February 2023 did not contain clinical signs and symptoms. Staff B stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 183; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUMMIT CARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/10/2015 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| SKILLED HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| SUMMIT CARE PARENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/10/2015 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| BRIDGEFORD, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| MENDELSON, AVI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| MCCRACKEN, KATHLEEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/06/2024 |
| RIZKALLA HANNA, MAGUED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| BOGDAN, GREGORY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/14/2025 |
| KIRSCHNER, JONATHAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/14/2025 |
| MURRAY, LAUREN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/14/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 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 $929K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 305024. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-06, 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.