Eastgate Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
198 Waterman Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (401) 431-2087 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 | 12.9% | 19.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 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 | 0.5% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.1% | 16.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.4% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 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 | 13.9% | 22.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.1% | 22.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 78.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.2% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.2% | 14.6% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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.
57.0% 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 85 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.8% 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 43 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 57.0%CMS range 46.9–66.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.8–15.1 | 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 | 69.8% | 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 | 58.1% | 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 | 65.1% | 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 | 98.2% | 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 | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.8%CMS range 4.6–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 60 beds and averages 61.5 residents a day — about 102% occupied, or roughly -2 beds 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.44 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.51 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the residents and/or their representatives participated in the comprehensive and quarterly care plan reviews for 3 of 6 residents, Resident ID #s 7, 8, and 10.Findings are as follows:Record review of a facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans last reviewed on 9/30/2025 states in part, .Frequent care plan meetings are to be encouraged to address changing circumstances which affect the residents' well-being. 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #7 was admitted to the facility in September of 2021 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, abnormalities of gait and mobility.Record review failed to reveal evidence that the following Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated, standardized comprehensive assessment tool used in Medicare/Medicaid certified nursing homes to evaluate the clinical, functional, and psychosocial status of residents) Assessments included documentation of participation or an explanation of non-participation of the resident and his/her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-19 · 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, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for oxygen use, Resident ID #s 11 and 63. Findings are as follows: According to Lippincott Nursing Procedure Ninth Edition 2023, page 621, states in part, .Verify the practitioner's order for the oxygen therapy, because oxygen is considered a medication or therapy and should be prescribed . 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #11 was admitted to the facility in October 2017 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, diabetes, and dementia. During surveyor observations on the following date and times, Resident ID #11 was observed receiving 2 liters (L) of oxygen via a nasal cannula: 2/17/2026 at 10:45 AM, 12:00 PM, 1:15 PM, and 2:00 PM. Record review failed to reveal evidence of a physician's order for the use of oxygen, as required. During a surveyor interview on 2/17/2026 at 2:25 PM with Registered Nurse, Staff B, she acknowledged that the resident was receiving 2 L of oxygen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · 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
Based on surveyor observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess one of three residents for the use of an air mattress (a pressure redistribution mattress that utilizes low air loss and pulsation) for the potential risk of entrapment related to bed rails, Resident ID # 2.Findings are as follows:Record review of a policy titled Side Rail Use last reviewed on 12/18/2025 states in part, POLICY: This facility recognizes the potential for the hazard of entrapment related to side rail use .PROCEDURE:4. The assessment is to assess the risk of entrapment and will specify the medical/physical conditions that make the rail necessary .8. Side rails are to be ordered by the resident's physician. The order shall include the reason the rail is to be utilized. 9. The care plan will reflect the use of the side rail. Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, congestive heart failure (when the heart muscle is too weak or stiff to pump blood efficiently, causing blood and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on surveyor observation, clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of infections related to disinfecting blood glucose meters (a device used to monitor blood glucose) for 1 of 1 resident observed, Resident ID #32.Findings are as follows:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention article titled Considerations for Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration dated 8/7/2024 states in part, If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per the manufacturer's instructions, to prevent the spread of blood and infectious agents.Review of the facility's policy revised on December 2025, titled, Diabetes - Care of equipment states in part, .If a glucometer is to be used for one resident and then reused for another, the device must be cleaned and disinfected between uses.Follow the manufacturer's recommendations for cleaning.Review of 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 · F2024-11-21 · 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 ensure that food is stored and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food safety relative to food handling, and 1 of 1 ice machines observed. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review of the Rhode Island Food Code 2018 Edition, 216-RICR-50-10-1 subchapter 10 titled food contamination, section 1.5.1 Preventing Contamination from Hands states in part, Food employees may not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands and shall use .single-use gloves . During surveyor observations of the meal service in the main kitchen of cook, Staff F, he failed to follow the single-use gloves protocol on the following dates and times: - 11/18/2024 from 11:50 AM to 12:11 PM, Staff F was observed touching the following equipment (oven, microwave, knives, and tongs), and food with the same gloves. Staff F then removed salad from a salad bowl and plated it for lunch service. Further, Staff F, with the same gloves on, put on an oven mitt, over his gloved…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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 relative to the failure to post cautionary and safety signs indicating that oxygen was in use for 3 of 3 residents observed, Resident ID #s 13, 36, and 52. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #52 was admitted to the facility in May of 2024 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the blood). Record review revealed a physician's order dated 8/20/2024 to administer humidified oxygen at 2 liters per minute (LPM) continuously via a nasal cannula (a medical device used to provide supplemental oxygen therapy). Surveyor observation of the resident's room failed to reveal evidence that a cautionary and safety sign indicating oxygen was in use on the following dates and times: - 11/18/2024 at 9:09 AM and 11:31 AM - 11/19/2024 at 8:07 AM - 11/20/2024 at 8:02 AM During a surveyor interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 related to skin integrity for 1 of 1 resident observed, Resident ID #50, and a Hoyer lift (mechanical lift) transfer for 1 of 4 residents reviewed, Resident ID #48. Findings are as follows: Record review of the State Operations Manual (SOM) Appendix PP-Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, updated on 8/8/2024, page 316 revealed that many clinicians recommended a position change (offloading) hourly for dependent residents who are sitting or who are in a bed or a reclining chair with the head of the bed or back of the wheelchair raised 30 degrees or more. Further review of the SOM revealed a micro shift, meaning a small change in the resident's position for a short period of time, may not be adequate since this approach does not allow sufficient capillary refill and tissue perfusion for a resident at risk of developing a pressure…
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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 a resident with limited range of motion (ROM) appropriate treatment and services relative the use of a hand roll device (use to promote extension in contrasted hand) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed, Resident ID #32. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in July of 2017 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, left hand contractures. Record review of the care plan dated 3/5/2024 revealed the resident is unable to be independent with self-care secondary to physical limitations. Record review of a physician's order dated 4/5/2024 revealed that the resident is to wear a left-hand roll with finger separators every morning for 6-8 hours, as tolerated. Record review of an Occupational Therapist (OT) note dated 11/11/2024, revealed that the resident was screened for the left-hand roll with finger separators and that s/he is appropriate to wear the device. During surveyor observations on the following dates and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · 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 maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases, relative to the disinfection of a multiuse glucometer. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility provided document titled, Facility's Competency Validation for Blood Glucose Testing, revealed the glucometer should be wiped down with a low-level disinfectant wipe (per the manufacturer's instructions) before and after each use. Record review of the McKesson's Manufacturer Instruction Manual revealed that the glucometer is to be cleaned and disinfected only with PDI Super Sani Cloth wipes (or any disinfectant product with the Environmental Protection Agency *reg. no. of 9480-4). Record review revealed Resident ID #10 has a physician's order dated 8/24/2024 to obtain a finger stick blood sugar (FSBS) once a day at 12:00 PM. During a surveyor observation on 11/19/2024 at 11:16 AM…
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 before2024-03-01 · 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 3 residents reviewed, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: Record review of an undated facility provided policy titled, Medication Administration Safety Program states in part, . 4. Prior to actually giving the resident the medication(s), the licensed staff member must confirm the residents' identity . Record review of a community reported complaint sent to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 2/28/2024 alleges that the Medication Technician, Staff A, gave Resident ID #1 medications that were prescribed for Resident ID #2. Record review for Resident ID #1 revealed that s/he was admitted to the facility in January of 2024 with diagnoses which include but are not limited to, spinal stenosis, muscle weakness and insomnia. During a surveyor interview on 2/29/2024 at 10:30 AM with Resident ID #1, s/he revealed that s/he was told by the facility staff that s/he was given someone else's medications in error on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-01 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure 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 a resident's drug regimen is free from significant medication errors for 1 of 1 resident reviewed who experienced a significant medication error, Resident ID #24. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in April of 2022 with a diagnosis, including but not limited to, hypertension. Record review revealed the resident has the following physician orders: -9/19/2023, to treat high blood pressure and chest pain: Amlodipine 5 mg (milligrams) to be administered once daily. -9/19/2023, to treat high blood pressure and heart failure: Lisinopril, 10 mg tablet to be administered once daily. Further review of the above-mentioned orders revealed parameters to hold the medication if the diastolic blood pressure (DBP, the bottom number of a blood pressure that measures the force exerted on the blood vessels when the heart is at rest) is less than 60 mm Hg (millimeters of mercury). Review of the 9/20/2023 through 9/30/2023 Medication…
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 · D2023-12-01 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents and staff, for 2 of 3 microwaves observed. Findings are as follows: Surveyor observation of the second floor, Unit 2A, on 11/29/2023 at 9:33 AM, revealed multiple rust spots on the inside ceiling of the microwave. One area, approximately the size of a half dollar, was located towards the front of the microwave and multiple small areas of rust were observed. Additionally, the rust debris was observed to flake off when touched. Further surveyor observation on the second floor, Unit 2B, on 11/29/2023 at 9:37 AM, revealed a brown and red colored buildup of an unidentified food substance on the inside ceiling and walls of the microwave. An additional surveyor observation of the microwave, located on the 2B Unit on 11/30/2023 at 7:59 AM, revealed the same brown and red colored food substance buildup on the inside ceiling and walls of the microwave as initially observed on the previous day. During a simultaneous 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RYAN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 33% | since 09/01/2012 |
| RYAN, KEVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 33% | since 09/01/2012 |
| RYAN, SALLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 33% | since 09/01/2012 |
| ARNOLD, KELLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/20/2017 |
| BISWAS, ANNA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2012 |
| RICHARDS, ALAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/13/2020 |
| CARRAGHER, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2012 |
| HEALTH CONCEPTS LTD | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
This home reported $529K 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 415083. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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.