Alpine Nursing Home Inc
557 Weaver Hill Road, Coventry, RI 02816 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (401) 397-5001 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
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 | 23.3% | 19.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.8% | 17.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.4% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.6% | 16.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.5% | 16.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.5% | 22.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 37.2% | 22.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.4% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.5% | 78.2% | 79.4% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 60 beds and averages 59.0 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.73 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-03-17 · 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 surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's environment remains as free from accident hazards as possible for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls, Resident ID #6 relative to the facility failing to utilize a gait belt during a transfer. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 3/13/2023 revealed the resident fell while being transferred from a shower chair to a wheelchair and sustained a fracture of his/her right radial styloid process (wrist area). Review of the facility policy titled Policy for Safe Handling of Residents revealed .Any resident who is unable to rise unassisted from a seated position, should be transferred with a gait/transfer belt . Record review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in March of 2014 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, cerebrovascular disease (a condition that affects blood…
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 · F2025-03-27 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide a dietary menu that meets the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines. Findings are as follows: Record review of the facility's diet manual titled, Alpine Nursing Home LLC Dietary Manual 2024-2025 failed to have the established national guidelines included in the diet manual for the development of the regular menu as well as for therapeutic diet offerings. Additionally, the manual failed to have the current Dietary Reference Intakes (a set of scientifically developed reference values for nutrients that refer to the average daily nutrient intake of a population) to ensure the nutritional adequacy of the menu served to their resident population. Record review of a document published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), revealed that a standardized recipe is utilized in a food service establishment to ensure the nutritional values per serving are valid and consistent, as the same products and quantities are being used every…
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 · Fcited before2025-03-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety relative to the main kitchen. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review of the State Operations Manual Appendix PP-Guidance to Surveyors for Long term Care Facilities 483.60(i)(1)-(2) states in part, chemical products and supplies, must be clearly marked . Record review of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard 1910.1200 (f)(1) states in part, .chemicals are marked with a product identifier, signal word (danger or warning), a statement that the full label information for the chemical is provided on the outside package . During a surveyor observation on 3/24/2025 at approximately 8:45 AM, upon entrance to the main kitchen, the following was observed: - one spray bottle with the words isopropyl alcohol handwritten in black magic marker. An additional surveyor observation on 3/26/2025 at 10:50 AM, upon entrance to the main kitchen, 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 · E2024-04-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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 surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that services provided meet professional standards of quality relative to following a physician's order for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for apical pulse (AP- a heartbeat measurement by listening with a stethoscope to the left center of the chest. This is the most accurate evaluation of a person's heart rate, particularly when an abnormality is detected), Resident ID #8. Findings are as follows: According to Mosby's 4th Edition, Fundamentals of Nursing page 314 states, The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses are obligated to follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or would harm the clients. Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2022 with diagnosis including, but not limited to, bradycardia (a slow heart rate that can occur due to heart issues and other health conditions). Further record review revealed the resident has a physician's order dated 1/5/2024 and revised…
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 · E2024-04-15 · tag F0699 — patternProvide 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 record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive trauma informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and account for the resident's experiences and preferences for 5 of 15 residents reviewed for Trauma Informed Care, Resident ID #s 22, 26, 31, 50 and 51. Findings are as follows: Record review of State Operations Manual Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, states in part, §483.25(m) Trauma-informed care .Assessment Facilities should use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma .This would include asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as screening and assessment tools such as the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), admission Assessment, the history and physical, the social history/assessment, and others . Record review of a facility policy dated 7/25/2019 titled, Trauma-Informed Care & Compassion Fatigue, states in part,…
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 · E2024-04-15 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on surveyor observation, record review and staff interview it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure nursing staff have the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care, for 5 of 5 Medication Technicians (MTs) reviewed relative to obtaining an apical pulse (AP- a heartbeat measurement by listening with a stethoscope to the left center of the chest. This is the most accurate evaluation of a person's heart rate, particularly when pulse an abnormality is detected) for Staff A, D, E, F, and G. Findings are as follows: According to the State Operation Manual Appendix PP- Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, last revised 2/3/2023 which states in part, .To assure that all nursing staff possess the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each…
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 · D2024-04-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care, Resident ID #s 2 and 23. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility policy undated and titled, Use of Oxygen, Nebulizers [medical device that turns liquid medication into a very fine mist that a person can inhale through a face mask or mouthpiece] & Supplies, states in part, .1. All nasal cannulas [a device used to deliver supplemental oxygen or increased airflow to a patient], masks, and humidifier bottles will be changed, labeled, and signed off on the emar [electronic medication administration record] once a week 2. Extension tubing and connectors will be changed once a week, labeled, and signed on emar . 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #2 was readmitted to the facility in May of 2023 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (an elevated level of carbon dioxide in…
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 · D2024-04-15 · 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 surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records that are accurately documented in accordance with professional standards and practices for 2 of 2 residents reviewed relative to oxygen therapy, Resident ID #s 2 and 23. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review for Resident ID #2 revealed s/he was admitted to the facility in May of 2023 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (an elevated level of carbon dioxide in the blood), obstructive sleep apnea (obstruction of the upper airway during sleep) and pulmonary fibrosis (a lung disease that occurs when lung tissue becomes damaged and scarred). Record review revealed a physician's order dated 7/29/2023 to change oxygen the tubing every week on Saturdays, during the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. Record review of the April 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the nurse had signed off the physician's order that she changed the resident's oxygen tubing on 4/6/2024. During…
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 · D2024-04-15 · 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 surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to conduct appropriate infection control practices relative to personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene for 2 of 2 staff members, Staff D and E, observed during care of COVID-19 positive residents, Resident ID #s 40 and 41. Findings are as follows: Record review of an undated facility policy titled, Alpine Nursing Home Infection Prevention and Control Program states in part, .Transmission Based Precautions .B. Droplet precautions personal protective equipment (PPE) will be used upon entering the room of a resident on respiratory droplet precautions .Contact Precautions-Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be used upon entering the room to prevent clothing of caregivers or visitors form contact with the infected resident, environmental surfaces or items in the room . During the entrance conference with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 4/10/2024 at 10:04 AM she revealed that the facility was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak for a total of 12…
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 · Fcited before2023-03-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to properly store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety relative to the main kitchen and nourishment room. Findings are as follows: Record review of the Rhode Island Food Code 2018 edition, section 4-602.11 states in part, . (C) NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris . During a surveyor observation of the main kitchen on 3/16/2023 at 8:23 AM revealed the following: - Approximately 40 Imperial vanilla shakes in the reach in refrigerator, not dated. Manufacture's Instruction: Store frozen. Thaw under refrigeration. Use within 14 days. - Condenser fan in the walk- in refrigerator and freezer with an accumulation of debris. During a surveyor interview with the Food Service Director (FSD) on 3/16/2023 at 9:15 AM he acknowledged the condenser fan in the refrigerator and 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 · D2023-03-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight for 1 of 6 residents reviewed who experienced an actual weight loss, Resident ID #12. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility policy titled, Weighing residents: states in part, .All residents .weighed at least once a month .At any time, the nurse/MD [medical doctor] can ask for a resident to be weighed .Obtain reweighs as needed . Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in November of 2018 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Parkinson's disease (a chronic, progressive neurological disorder causing uncontrollable movements), dementia, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Record review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognition is severely impaired. Further review of the MDS Assessment indicated the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-04-15 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hand contractures (shortening of muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby soft tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff), Resident ID #23. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in January of 2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, age-related physical disability, tremors, and contracture of the right hand. Record review of an Occupation Therapy (OT) evaluation plan and treatment dated 4/10/2023 through 5/9/2023 revealed the resident was evaluated and treated for a contractures to his/her left-hand. Additional record review revealed s/he experienced a functional limitation due to this contracture. Record review of an OT evaluation plan and treatment dated 10/24/2023 through 11/22/2023 revealed the resident was evaluated and treated for contractures to his/her left and right hands.…
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| GAUVIN, RODNEY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/05/1990 |
| MESSIER, JANET | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/28/1993 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 2 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.
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.
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 RI
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 Rhode Island 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 415089. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-27, 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.