Scandinavian Home INC
1811 Broad Street, Cranston, RI 02905 · Non profit - Corporation · 74 certified beds · (401) 461-1433 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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 | Not rated |
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.
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.
56.4% 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 56 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
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 | 56.4%CMS range 46.1–67.2 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 6.0–14.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.5–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 reconcile all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications, for 1 of 1 discharged residents reviewed with physician orders for Cymbalta (a medication prescribed to treat depression), Resident ID #4. Findings are as follows: Record review of Resident ID #4 revealed s/he was admitted to the facility in December of 2023 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, major depressive disorder. Record review of a pharmacy medication regimen review dated 8/1/2024 revealed a recommendation to decrease the resident's Cymbalta medication from 60 milligrams (MG) daily to 40 MG daily, after the current supply of medication is exhausted. Further review revealed that the provider approved the recommended dose reduction on 9/9/2024. Record review of a progress note dated 9/13/2024 revealed the new order of Cymbalta 40 MG daily should start on 11/5/2024, after the remaining supply is exhausted. Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 a resident receives treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident reviewed with recommendations from a gastrointestinal specialist (a medical practitioner that specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the gastrointestinal tract also known as the passageway of the digestive system), Resident ID #5. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility in October of 2024 after s/he was hospitalized and diagnosed with a gastrointestinal bleed (bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract). Record review of a Continuity of Care Consultation and Referral Form dated 11/1/2024 revealed the resident was seen by the Gastroenterologist for a follow up visit. Further review of the document states, Below are the orders from today's visit: -Benefiber (a fiber supplement) one tablespoon daily for 1 month -high fiber diet -GERD diet (a low acidic diet, gastroesophageal reflux disease a chronic…
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 · F2023-11-24 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — widespreadRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
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 regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment. Findings are as follows: Review of the State Operations Manual Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities Last revised 2/3/2023 states in part, .Regardless of mattress width, length, and/or depth, the bed frame, bed rail and mattress should leave no gap wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body .Facilities must also conduct routine preventive maintenance of beds and bed rails to ensure they meet current safety standards and are not in need of repair . Review of a facility policy titled Bed Rail Policy last reviewed 6/10/2022, revealed in part, .The Maintenance Department will conduct inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bedrails, as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment upon admission, quarterly, yearly and as needed . Review of a…
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 · D2023-11-24 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident within 48 hours of a resident's admission, that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for the resident that meets professional standards of quality care relative to a suprapubic catheter (S/P tube, a catheter inserted through the abdomen into the bladder to drain urine) and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (MRSA, an infection that is caused by a type of staph bacteria that becomes resistant to several antibiotics) in a lower extremity wound, for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for baseline care plans, Resident ID #272. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in November of 2023 with a diagnosis to include, but is not limited to, retention of urine. A. Review of a progress note dated 11/17/2023 states in part, .s/p tube located on right leg . Record review of the physician's orders revealed an order dated 11/17/2023 to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-24 · 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 surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality relative to following physician's orders for 2 of 5 residents reviewed who use an air mattress, Resident ID #s 28 and 49, 1 of 1 resident with an order to not have straws with liquids, Resident ID #49, 1 of 1 resident reviewed with a hand contracture, Resident ID #33 and 1 of 2 residents observed during a treatment dressing, Resident ID #38. Findings are as follows: According to Mosby's 4th Edition, Fundamentals of Nursing, page 314 states in part, .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 . 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #28 was admitted to the facility in November of 2019 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, muscle weakness, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness or paralysis to one side of the body) following a stroke. Record review revealed a physician's order dated…
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 · D2023-11-24 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for use of bed rails with an air mattress, Resident ID #28. Findings are as follows: Review of the State Operations Manual Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities last revised 2/3/2023 states in part, .Regardless of mattress width, length, and/or depth, the bed frame, bed rail and mattress should leave no gap wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body. Gaps can be created by movement or compression of the mattress which may be caused by resident weight, resident movement or bed position, or by using a specialty mattress, such as an air mattress .Check bed rails regularly to make sure they are still installed correctly as rails may shift or loosen over time .The use of a specialty air-filled mattress or a therapeutic air-filled bed may also present an entrapment risk that is…
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 · D2023-11-24 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 are free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for parameters associated with blood pressure medication, Resident ID #2. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of, but is not limited to, hypertension (high blood pressure, BP). Record review revealed a physician order dated 8/29/2023 for Losartan (a medication used to treat high blood pressure), 50 milligrams (mg) once daily, with parameters to hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP, the top number which refers to the amount of pressure experienced by the arteries while the heart is beating) less than 100. Record review of the October 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed on the following dates Losartan was not administered when the resident's SBP was not less than 100: - 10/16/2023: BP was documented as 100/58, with a note that states, Not Administered: Due to condition Comment: held bp 100/58 p [pulse] 64. -…
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 · E2022-09-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 5 residents reviewed relative to falls, Resident ID #19. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in March of 2017 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to, dementia with behavioral disturbance and history of falling. Additional record review revealed the resident has a physician's order dated 10/8/2020 which states, May have floor matt at bedside to avoid or reduce injury in the event of fall to floor. Review of the SH [Safe Handling] Fall Risk (Acuity) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the following: - Mental status: disoriented, Diminished Safety Awareness - Ambulation: Impaired Mobility - Medication Use: Antihypertensive (medication used to treat high blood pressure), Antipsychotics/Neuroleptics (medication used to treat mental illness) - Resident has the following conditions:…
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 before2022-09-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for skin conditions, Resident ID #'s 14 and 45. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility policy titled, Skin Care Program states in part, .With each dressing change or at least weekly .documentation must be present .location .wound bed: color and type of tissue/character including evidence of healing .The MD [Medical Director] and the resident's responsible party shall be made aware . 1. Review of Resident ID #14's record revealed s/he was admitted to the facility in March of 2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to; unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 4, indicating severe…
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 · D2022-09-12 · 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
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, for 1 of 8 residents reviewed relative to weight monitoring, Resident ID #48. Findings are as follows: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Weight Monitoring states in part: POLICY: it is the policy of this facility to monitor the weight of every resident on a regular basis and to carry out appropriate interventions when necessary to assure the optimum level of health possible for the individual resident . How to weigh the resident: 6. Weights that are + or minus 3 pounds from the last reading must be reported to the nurse who will then be required to supervise an immediate re-weight to double check the accuracy of the reading. The nurse is to enter the supervised reading to verify its accuracy. All re-weights are to be completed within twenty-four (24) hours . 7. Weights obtained that are + or - 3# [pounds] are to be reported to MD [medical doctor] and responsible party .…
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 · D2022-09-12 · 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, staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for 2 of 3 sample residents reviewed for oxygen therapy, Resident ID #s 38 and 45. Findings are as follows: Record review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration revised 2/14/2008, states in part, .PROCEDURE: 1. Check physician's order for liter flow .7. Masks and nasal cannula's will be changed weekly. 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #38 was admitted to the facility in April of 2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Record review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 8/17/2022 which states, May provide Oxygen at 2 liters as needed via nasal cannula to maintain pulse ox [oxygen] above 91% or with reports of SOB [shortness of breath] As needed. During surveyor observations on the following dates and times, the resident was observed receiving oxygen therapy at…
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 · D2022-09-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 each resident's drug regimen is reviewed by a licensed pharmacist and includes a review of the resident's medical chart for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, Resident ID #11. Findings are as follows: Review of the resident's record revealed s/he was re-admitted to the facility in June of 2022 with diagnoses which include, but are not limited to, encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the genitourinary system (organs of the reproductive and urinary systems), Alzheimer's disease, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Record review of the resident's monthly drug regimen review document dated 8/18/2022 revealed, This resident is receiving Remeron (mirtazapine) 7.5 mg [milligrams] at bedtime with the off label diagnosis of appetite stimulation. At low doses this agent carries higher sedative properties and could increase this resident's risk of drowsiness and falls. Although there is evidence to support that this medication, at low doses, can…
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 · D2022-09-12 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 8 residents, Resident ID #15. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in September of 2013 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, diabetes mellitus, dementia, and nutritional deficiencies. Record review of the physician's orders revealed a diet order dated 7/31/2022, which states in part, .Texture; ground, small bite size pieces (including breads) . During a surveyor observation of the lunch meal on 9/7/2022 at 12:13 PM revealed the resident's plate consisted of penne pasta, large chunks of zucchini, and non-bite sized pieces of chicken parmesan. During a surveyor observation on 9/8/2022 at 8:17 AM, Nursing Assistant, Staff E, was observed serving the resident breakfast which included two whole slices of toasted raisin bread. Further observation revealed a dietary slip on his/her tray which indicated a regular diet. During a surveyor…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SILVERMAN, COLETTE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| SODIPO, TAIWO | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 07/01/2019 |
| CONNOR, DORIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2020 |
| CARROCCIA, JULIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| DESIMONE, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| FORSTER, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| JOHNSON, JOEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| LARKIN, JEAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| MOCK, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| NAULT, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| OHSBERG, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| PEARSON, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| RESLOW, LEIF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| SWANSON, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
This home reported $368K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 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 415051. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-07, 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.