Cheshire County Home
201 River Road, Westmoreland, NH 03467 · Government - County · 150 certified beds · (603) 399-4912 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.4% | 22.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.2% | 13.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.2% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.8% | 17.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.5% | 19.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.4% | 25.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.3% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.7% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.8% | 13.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 1.64 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 1.87 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.6% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 32 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 44.6%CMS range 31.3–61.5 | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 6.3–13.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 28.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 21.9% | 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 | 25.0% | 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 | 77.1% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 5.7% | 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 | 2.9% | 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 3.5–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 150 beds and averages 111.4 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 39 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 4.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.84 is at or above 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 4.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.64 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 a medication error rate less than 5 percent (%) for 2 of 33 medication administration opportunities observed. (Resident Identifier is #21).Findings include:Observation on 9/10/25 at 9:06 a.m. of the morning medication administration for Resident #21 with Staff C (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed Staff C to prepare one tablet of Vitamin D3 10 mcg (micrograms) and 17 g (grams) of Polyethylene Glycol (laxative) and prepared to administer the medications to Resident #21.Review on 9/10/25 of Resident #21's September Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed a physician's order for Vitamin D3 25mcg. Further review revealed a physician's order to administer Polyethylene Glycol 8.5 g with the morning medication administration.Interview on 9/10/25 at approximately 9:08 a.m. with Staff C confirmed that he/she was going to administer the wrong doses Vitamin D3 and Polyethylene Glycol to Resident #21.Review on 9/11/25 of facility policy titled Medication Administration- General…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to collaborate in the development of a coordinated plan of care for each resident receiving hospice services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospice services in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident Identifier is #12).Findings include:Review on 9/9/25 of Resident #12's medical record revealed an order, dated 8/27/25, to admit to hospice. Further review of Resident #12's medical record revealed no information regarding frequency of visits by hospice staff or services to be provided.Review on 9/10/25 of Resident #12's hospice binder revealed no information regarding the frequency of visits by hospice staff or services to be provided.Interview on 9/10/25 at approximately 12:07 p.m. with Staff A (Unit Manager) confirmed that there was no plan of care from the hospice provider with frequency of visits or services provided for Resident #12. Staff A stated they were not aware of when hospice staff were coming to provide services for Resident #12.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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 remove equipment from use that was not in safe working order for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls in a final sample of 23. (Resident Identifier is #11.)Findings include:Interview on 9/9/25 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Resident #11 revealed that he/she had a fall last week due to his/her wheelchair brake not locking properly. Further interview revealed that Resident #11 lost his/her balance and fell when transferring from their recliner to their wheelchair.Review on 9/11/25 of Resident #11's medical record revealed a progress note, dated 9/6/25, Resident stating [pronoun omitted] was getting up to use the bathroom and [pronoun omitted] wheelchair wasn't locked fully-when [pronoun omitted] went to sit in the wheelchair it moved and [pronoun omitted] fell. Interview on 9/11/25 at approximately 8:40 a.m. with Staff D (Rehabilitation Technician) revealed that Staff D was aware of Resident #11's wheelchair brake not working properly at times. Staff D stated that he/she did check Resident #11's…
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 · E2024-09-26 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 follow an established antibiotic stewardship program and system of monitoring antibiotic use for 2 of 3 residents that were reviewed (Resident Identifiers are #36 and #7). Findings include: Review on 9/25/24 of facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP), undated, revealed that the program support statement is to reduce the overuse of antibiotics. Further review revealed .Providers .Document conversation with residents and their representative regarding the current medical treatment plan and the appropriate use of antibiotics .Infection Preventionist .Help ensure antibiotics are prescribed only when appropriate. Review on 9/25/24 of facility policy titled, Policy for Infection Control Surveillance, dated 9/2023, revealed: .1.e ICC will identify using the McGeer's definitions to see if an antibiotic is ordered that met criteria . Interview on 9/26/24 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) revealed that a discussion with medical providers takes place in 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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide foot care for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for foot care in a final sample of 21 residents (Resident Identifier #87). Findings include: Observation on 9/24/24 at approximately 10:50 a.m. of Resident #87's toenails revealed long and overgrown toenails by approximately 1 inch over the toe. His/her toenails were thick and curling in and around his/her toes. Record review on 9/25/24 of Resident #87's Podiatry note, dated 5/20/24, revealed toenail care for thick, dystrophic, elongated nails B/L [bilaterally] and to follow up in 60 days. Interview on 9/24/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #87's last podiatry visit was on 5/20/24. Staff A revealed the podiatrist was in the facility seeing residents yesterday (9/24/24) and the podiatrist did not see Resident #87. Record review on 9/26/24 of Resident #87's nurses note dated 9/8/24 revealed that Resident #87's toenails had been assessed as long and thick. Further review revealed that 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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that as needed (PRN) psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 21 residents (Resident Identifier #31). Findings include: Review on 9/24/24 of Resident #31's September 2024's Medication Administration Record revealed the following physician's order: Lorazepam 0.5 mg [milligram] Tablet by mouth every 2 hours as needed for restlessness/agitation, Start Date 6/2/24. Further review revealed that Resident #31 received a dose of the PRN medication on 9/11/24. Interview on 9/25/24 at approximately 1:45 p.m. with Staff D (Unit Manager) confirmed the above findings and that Resident #31's above order was not limited to 14 days. Review on 9/25/24 of the facility policy titled, Antipsychotic and Psychotropic Medications, Dated August 2023 revealed: .PRN orders for Psychotropic drugs (anti-psychotic, Anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, Hypnotic and or any medication ordered for psychotropic use) are limited to 14 days .
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were disposed of properly, to prevent potential unauthorized access, during observation of medication administration in a survey sample of 16 medications prepared for administration. Findings include: Observation on 9/24/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of Staff G (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed he/she disposed of a medication capsule in the open trash on the medication cart. Further observation revealed Staff G disposed of a second medication capsule in the open trash on the medication cart. Interview on 9/24/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff G revealed his/her usual practice is to dispose medications in the trash. Interview on 9/25/24 at approximately 3:15 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) revealed medication disposal should be in the drug buster stored in the locked medication room.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation; and determine that drug records are in order; and that an account of all controlled drugs is maintained in 3 of 4 narcotic books reviewed. Findings include: Review on 7/18/22 of the facility's policy titled Narcotic Count and Book Policy Version C dated August 2017 revealed, .Policy: Narcotics are to be counted and the narcotic book signed by both oncoming and outgoing shift at the beginning and end of every shift and anytime the keys to the med carts are passed to another licensed nursing staff .Procedure: When doing count: off duty nurse does the narcotic book reading the resident, drug, and dosage. Nurses must be side by side so they both can see the page and medication cart .The back pages of the narcotic book are designated for signatures. Entry must be dated, timed, yes or no indicated if count is correct, and both nurses must sign with their…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that narcotics were properly stored in 1 of 4 medication storage rooms observed. Findings include: Observation on 7/17/23 at 9:25 a.m. of the Second Floor Medication Room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) revealed an unlocked refrigerator. There was a padlock resting on top of the refrigerator. Inside the refrigerator were 4 vials (2 milligrams/1 milliliter) of Lorazepam injection (a Schedule IV controlled substance). Interview on 7/17/23 at 9:30 a.m. with Staff C (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed that the refrigerator was unlocked. Staff C stated that medications must have been removed from the refrigerator that morning and the refrigerator should have been locked after the medications were removed. Review on 7/18/22 of the facility's policy titled Storage and Expiration of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles revised on 10/31/16 revealed, . 3. General Storage Procedures: 3.1 Facility should store Schedule…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COUNTY OF CHESHIRE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2000 |
| CLARK, TERRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| STEWART, CLAUDIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| TROMBLY, SHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/22/2002 |
| DIBERNARDO, ANGELO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| KINDOPP, KATHRYN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2007 |
| SORRENTI, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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 305054. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.