Salemhaven
23 Geremonty Drive, Salem, NH 03079 · Non profit - Corporation · 110 certified beds · (603) 893-5586 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- 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 a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 22.6% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.5% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 13.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.6% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 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 | 7.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.8% | 25.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.3% | 17.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.2% | 83.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.5% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.0% | 13.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 1.64 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.76 | 1.87 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
63.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 377 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.7% 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 151 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 0.47 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 78% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.7%CMS range 57.2–68.0 | 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 | 11.2%CMS range 8.6–14.3 | 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 | 51.7% | 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 | 42.4% | 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 | 36.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.8% | 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 | 95.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 99.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.4% | 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 | 3.9% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 4.3–9.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 110 beds and averages 88.8 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 21 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.12 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness in 1 of 1 kitchen and 3 of 3 kitchenettes observed. Findings include:Review on 4/23/24 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…
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 · D2025-08-14 · 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were followed for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for choices in a final sample of 19 residents. (Resident identifier is #84.)Findings include: Review on 8/13/25 of Resident #84's August 2025's MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed:Labetalol HCL (Hydrochloric Acid) Oral Tablet (Labetalol HCL) Give 100 mg (milligrams) by mouth every 6 hours for HTN (Hypertension) (Give if SBP (Systolic Blood Pressure) greater than 160, Hold if AP (Apical Pulse) less than 60), Start Date 8/1/25 revealed: 8/3 the medication was administered at 8:00 am with a SBP of 121, at 2:00 p.m. with a SBP of 137, and 8:00 p.m. with a SBP of 134.8/6 the medication was administered at 8:00 p.m. with a SBP of 128.8/7 the medication was administered at 2:00 a.m. with a SBP of 139.8/8 the medication was administered at 2:00 a.m. with a SBP of 141.8/9 the medication was administered at 8:00 a.m. with a SBP of 152, and at 2:00 p.m. with a SBP of 142.8/10 the medication was administered at 2:00 p.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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 the appropriate care and services for catheter care for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters in a final sample of 19 residents. (Resident identifiers are #1and #5).Findings include:Resident #1 Review on 8/12/25 of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: Irrigate Foley/Suprapubic Catheter with normal saline PRN [as needed] per MD [Doctor of Medicine] orders (SPECIFY), dated 7/14/25. Further review revealed that there were no other orders indicating when to irrigate Resident #1's foley catheter and no orders for how much normal saline to use when flushing Resident #1's foley catheter. Review on 8/12/25 of Resident #1's care plan, initiated on 7/15/25 revealed that Resident #1 had an indwelling catheter due to his/her diagnosis of urinary retention. Further review revealed that under interventions included .Report to MD (Doctor of Medicine) no output . Review on 8/12/25 of Resident #1's medical record revealed there was no urine output documented…
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 before2025-08-14 · 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 the facility failed to properly label a vial of multidose injectable medication when opened for 2 out of 3 medication refrigerators observed.Findings include:Observation on 8/13/25 at 8:40 a.m. of the third floor medication room refrigerator revealed an open vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative that was unlabeled with an opened date or an open expiration date. Interview on 8/13/25 at 8:40 a.m. with Staff E (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed the above findings. Observation on 8/12/25 at approximately 9:10 a.m. in the Infection Preventionist Office refrigerator revealed one opened undated vial of Tuberculin solution. Interview on 8/12/25 at approximately 9:10 a.m. with Staff D (Infection Preventionist) confirmed the above findings. Review on 8/13/25 of manufacturer's instruction for Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative revealed: A vial of TUBERSOL which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded. Do not use after expiration date. Review on 8/13/25 of the facility's policy titled…
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 before2025-08-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct an annual review of its infection prevention and control program and implement policies and procedures for Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) to prevent the potential spread of infection for 3 of 4 resident observed for TBP in a final sample of 19 residents. (Resident identifier is #17, #56, and #68.). Findings include:Interview on 8/12/25 at 8:30 a.m. with Staff J (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed that there was an upper respiratory virus outbreak and the following residents were on contact precautions: Resident #17, Resident #56, and Resident #68. Interview 8/12/2025 at 12:30 p.m. with Staff D (Infection Preventionist) confirmed that rooms Resident #17, Resident #56, and Resident #68 were on droplet precautions recommended by the health department due to a respiratory outbreak at the facility. He/she stated that residents that were symptomatic should remain on droplet precautions until they had completed their antibiotics or symptomatic free for 24 hours. Staff D 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-14 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures on COVID-19 immunization for 1 of 1 staff reviewed for COVID-19 immunizations. (Staff identifier is Staff M).Findings include: Review on 8/14/25 of the facility's policy titled COVID-19 Vaccination implemented on 8/12/25 revealed, . It is the policy of this facility to minimize the risk of acquiring, transmitting or experiencing complications from COVID-19 . by education and offering our residents and staff the COVID-19 vaccine . Up-to-date is defined as receiving a 2024-2025 updated COVID-19 vaccine . 14. The facility will educate and offer the COVID-19 vaccine to residents, resident represents and staff and maintain documentation of such. 15. The facility will maintain documentation related to staff COVID-19 vaccination and include at a minimum: a. Education to the staff regarding the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine; b. The offering of the COVID-19 vaccine or information on obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine; c. The COVID-19 vaccine…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow accepted guidelines to prevent the spread of infections for 5 of 10 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident identifier #15, #22, #69, #84, and #343) and for 1 out of 4 residents observed for medication administration (Resident identifier is #14). Findings include: Resident #14 Observation on 8/7/24 at approximately 7:24 a.m. with Staff O (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) during medication administration observation revealed that Staff O donned gloves and administered Resident #14's Insulin Glargine 20 units subcutaneously at the left upper quadrant of the abdomen. Staff O did not doff used gloves and did not perform hand hygiene before administering brinzolamide-brimonidine 1-0.2% (percent) eye drops to Resident #14. Staff O then touched Resident #14's bilateral lower eyelids and on the top of his/her head, while wearing the gloves, during administration of the eye drops. Further observation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that alleged violations of neglect were reported immediately or no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for neglect (Resident Identifiers are #20 and #79). Findings include: Resident #79 Review on 8/6/24 of the facility grievance log revealed the following allegations of neglect: An allegation of neglect dated 7/24/24 reported by Resident #79 stating that he/she rang the call bell Tuesday at 3:30 a.m. and the call bell was not answered until 4:15 a.m When staff entered the room the call light was shut off and Resident #79 was told We don't have time right now, you need to wait your turn. Resident #79 further reported that prior to breakfast that same morning, an Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) entered her room and stated get up while pulling the blankets off her. Resident #20 Allegation of neglect 7/22/24 for a complaint of Staff R (LNA) refusing to answer Resident #20's call bell, causing incontinence, then when the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from use for 2 of 2 medication rooms observed and 2 of 3 medication carts observed. (Resident identifiers are #62 and #63.) Findings include: Observation on 7/31/23 at approximately 8:00 a.m. of the 2 East Medication Cart with Staff D (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed: 1 Bottle of Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg) with an expiration date of 2/23; 1 Bottle of Vitamin B12 100 micrograms (mcg) with an expiration date of 6/23. Interview on 7/31/23 at approximately 8:00 a.m. with Staff D confirmed the above findings. Observation on 8/1/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of the 2 [NAME] Medication Cart with Staff A (Unit Manager) revealed: 1 Bottle of Delsym Cough Syrup with an expiration date of 07/23; 1 opened Lispro Insulin 100 units per milliliter (U/mL) pen for Resident #62 with no open date, no open expiration date, and a dispense date of 6/28/23 with a pharmacy label indicating to discard 28 days after opening; 1 medication card of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was prepared in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 main kitchen observed and the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness for 3 of 3 kitchenettes observed. Findings include: Observation on 7/31/23 at 8:40 a.m. in the main kitchen with Staff E (Food Service Director) revealed that the range hood over the stove had accumulated gray dust and grease debris on the grates located on the inside of the hood. Interview on 7/31/23 at 8:40 a.m. with Staff E confirmed the above finding. Observation on 7/31/23 at approximately 8:40 a.m. revealed two fans in the dishwashing area with gray dust and grease debris on the front and back of the fans blowing onto air-dried clean dishes. Interview on 7/31/23 at approximately 8:40 a.m. with Staff E confirmed above finding. Review on 8/3/23 of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Food Code, dated 2022, retrieved from:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-08-14 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 demonstrate their response and rationale to resident council grievances for May and June 2025 and maintain evidence demonstrating the response and rationale of the resident group grievances from the Resident Council Meeting. Findings include: Review on 8/12/25 of the facility's Resident Council Meeting minutes revealed the following:On 5/13/25 there were concerns that food was not hot and there were missing items (blanket and two afghans);On 6/9/25 there were concerns of cold meals; food was not what was ordered and the wait times for using the bathroom were too long. On 7/24/25 there were concerns that residents were waiting too long to use the bathroom, there were missing items (did not specify what items were missing) and food was served cold, delivered late and was not what was ordered.Further review of the above three meeting minutes revealed that there was no documentation that concerns were responded to or followed up on at the next Resident Council Meeting. There were no Resident Council…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-08 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 send a copy of the notice of Transfer/Discharge to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization for a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifiers are #30 and #57). Findings include: Resident #30 Review on 8/8/24 of Resident #30's medical record revealed that Resident #30 was transferred to the hospital for a higher level of care on 2/6/24. Review on 8/8/24 of Resident #30's Notice of Transfer/Discharge form dated 2/6/24 revealed no evidence that it was sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Resident #57 Review on 8/6/24 of Resident #57's progress notes revealed a hospitalization on 12/18/23. Review on 8/8/24 of Resident #57's Notice of Transfer/Discharge form dated 12/18/23 revealed no evidence that it was sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Interview on 8/8/24 at approximately 2:30 p.m. with Staff F (Director of Social Services) confirmed that copies of the transfer/discharge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-08 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the residents' status for 4 out of 23 residents reviewed for MDS in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifiers are #5, #12, #34, and #90). Findings include: Resident #12 Review on 8/7/24 of Resident #12's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], section P0100- Restraints and Alarms, revealed that the section Used in Bed; A. Bed rail was coded with a 2, indicating it was used daily. Review on 8/8/24/24 of Resident #12's Orders revealed a MD order dated 7/17/24 for 2 upper half rails on bed at all times to help with bed mobility and transfers in and out of bed, Diagnosis -muscle weakness and Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA). Interview on 8/8/24 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Resident #12 revealed that he/she liked to use the bed rails to shift positions when lying in bed and to help steady him/her when getting out of bed. Resident #34 Review on 8/8/24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-08 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a performance review at least once every 12 months for 2 of 4 Licensed Nurse Assistants (LNA) reviewed. Findings include: Review on 8/8/24 of Staff I's (LNA) employee records revealed an employment start date of 6/3/22. Further review revealed there has been no evidence of a performance evaluation completed. Review on 8/8/24 of Staff J's (LNA) employee records revealed an employment start date of 7/25/23. Further review revealed there was no evidence of performance evaluation completed. Interview on 8/8/24 at approximately 10:30 a.m. with Staff A (Director of Nurses) confirmed above findings.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MILLIARD, RAYMOND | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/03/2003 |
| MURRAY-POTRIN, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/01/2016 |
| COVENANT HEALTH | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2001 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New Hampshire Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 305058. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.