Village House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
70 Harrison Avenue, Newport, RI 02840 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 95 certified beds · (401) 849-5222 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-18)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.3% | 19.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 48.6% | 17.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.6% | 16.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.4% | 16.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.4% | 22.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 29.0% | 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 | 90.3% | 78.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.3% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.5% | 14.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.60 | 1.59 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.83 | 1.68 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.0% 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 116 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 21.9% 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 73 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 | 55.0%CMS range 47.0–60.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.1%CMS range 6.4–13.2 | 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 | 21.9% | 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 | 26.0% | 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 | 19.2% | 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 | 85.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 1.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 4.2–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 95 beds and averages 85.8 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 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 3.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-06 · 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 record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment remains as free from accident hazards as possible, relative to the implementation of an intervention indicated on the Safe Resident Handling document, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed who had sustained a fracture while in the facility, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: According to an article published by STATPEARLS found in the National Library of Medicine National Center for Biotechnology Information titled, Avulsion Fractures, last updated on 8/7/2023, states in part, .Pathophysiology .An avulsion fracture occurs when a ligament or other soft tissue attachment to bone overcomes the stress capacity of the bony attachment and tears off a portion of the bone. This usually occurs with forces applied from trauma . Record review of a facility reported incident received by the Rhode Island Department of Health on 7/28/2024, revealed in part, .x-ray returned of left femur with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-12 · 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, the facility failed to ensure that food is stored, served, and distributed, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, relative to the main kitchen.Findings are as follows:1. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022 Edition, Section 5-202.13 states in part, An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE .may not be less than 25mm [millimeter] (1 inch).During a surveyor observation on 3/9/2026 at approximately 9:30 AM, of the main kitchen during the initial walk through, in the presence of Cook, Staff H, the ice machine did not have a one-inch air gap, as required.During a surveyor interview immediately following the above observation with Staff H, he acknowledged that the ice machine did not have a one-inch air gap. 2. Review of the FDA Food Code 2022 Edition, Section 6-305.11(B) states in part, .lockers or other suitable facilities shall be provided for the orderly storage of EMPLOYEES' .possessions.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.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-12 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 1 resident reviewed who was treated with antibiotics for infected heel wounds, Resident ID #3.Findings are as follows:1. 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 that the orders are in error or would harm the clients.Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in January of 2026 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, pressure ulcer of the right and left heels.a. Record review revealed the following progress notes:-2/4/2026 at 4:45 PM: The resident's bilateral heel wounds were noted to be tender, reddened, and had a foul odor. Additionally, the resident's physician ordered wound cultures to be obtained.-2/8/2026 at 3:55 PM: The resident's wound cultures were positive for an infection and the resident's provider ordered two oral…
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 · D2026-03-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on surveyor observation, clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality related to following physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident reviewed with an order for a cervical collar, Resident ID #11, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed with an order for no straws, Resident ID #70 and for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for non-pressure wounds, Resident ID #s 88 and 98.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 #11 was admitted to the facility in November of 2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder that primarily affects movement), scoliosis (a condition characterized by an abnormal side to side curvature of the spine),…
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 · D2026-03-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 1 resident observed with medications at the bedside, Resident ID #9 and for 1 of 2 medication rooms observed during the medication storage task.Findings are as follows:Record review of a facility policy titled, Medication Storage states in part, .It is the policy of this facility that medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations.to support safe effective drug administration.medications are stored in a controlled environment. This may include such containers as medication carts, medication rooms, medication cabinets, or other suitable containers. 1. During surveyor observations of Resident ID #9, s/he was observed with one bottle of AREDS (an eye vitamin) and one 16-ounce bottle of chlorhexidine mouthwash (an antibacterial mouthrinse) on his/her bedside table on the following dates and times:3/9/2026 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 · D2026-03-12 · 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, clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that resident records are complete and accurately documented, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed who was treated with an antibiotic for infected heel wounds, Resident ID #3 and for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a non-pressure wound, Resident ID #88.Findings are as follows:1. Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in January of 2026 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, pressure ulcer of the right and left heels.Record review revealed the resident had wound cultures obtained of his/her right and left heel wounds.Review of a progress note dated 2/8/2026 at 3:55 PM revealed that the resident's wound cultures were positive for infectious organisms and the resident's provider ordered two oral antibiotics, ciprofloxacin 250 milligrams (mg) twice daily for ten days and metronidazole 250 mg three times daily for ten days.Record review revealed the physician's order for metronidazole 250 mg was incorrectly transcribed to be administered twice daily, instead…
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 · D2026-03-12 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 establish an Infection Prevention and Control Program that must include, at a minimum, an antibiotic stewardship program which includes antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use to ensure that residents who require an antibiotic, are prescribed the appropriate antibiotic for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for antibiotic use, Resident ID #s 2 and 3.Findings are as follows:Review of a facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program, last reviewed 12/31/2024, states in part, It is the policy of this facility to recognize the need to monitor antibiotic use in order to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use. The antibiotic stewardship program is directed toward the correct use of an antibiotic- the five D's.the right dose, the duration.1. Record review revealed Resident ID #3 was readmitted to the facility in January of 2026 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, pressure ulcer of the right and left heels.Record review…
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 before2025-01-09 · 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 prepare, store, and distribute food according to professional standards of food service safety, relative to the main kitchen and 1 of 2 nourishment areas observed. Findings are as follows: 1. Review of the Rhode Island Food Code, 2018 Edition, section 3-501.17 states in part, .(B) .refrigerated, ready-to-eat time/temperature control for safety food .shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment .and: (1) the day the original container is opened in the food establishment shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date . During the initial tour of the main kitchen on 1/6/2025 at approximately 9:00 AM, in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD), the dry storage area of the kitchen contained the following: -One bottle of Hershey's syrup opened and undated.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-09 · 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
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for each resident, for 2 of 2 residents reviewed with indwelling urinary catheters (a flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag), Resident ID #s 33 and 38. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #38 was admitted to the facility in October of 2024 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, cutaneous vesicostomy (an opening is created in the belly, through which urine can continuously pass). Record review revealed the resident has a supra pubic catheter (a thin tube used to drain urine from the bladder). Review of the resident's care plan dated 11/21/2024, revealed the resident requires an indwelling urinary catheter due to obstructive uropathy and neurogenic bladder (bladder dysfunction caused by damage to the nervous system) with interventions including, but not limited to, monitor urinary output and report abnormal findings. Further record review failed to reveal evidence…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-09 · 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 to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections, relative to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP; involves using a gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities), for 1 of 2 wound treatments observed, involving Resident ID #38. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility policy titled, Guidelines for Management of MDROs [Multidrug Resistant Organism] states in part, .Enhanced Barrier Precautions - it has been determined by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] that focusing on residents with active infection fails to address the continued risk of transmission from residents with MDRO colonization, which can persist for long periods of time (e.g., months) and result in the silent spread of MDROs. Enhanced Barrier Precautions .requires gown and gloves for certain residents (those with existing MDROs, colonization of MDROs or those residents in close physical…
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 · D2024-07-18 · 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 that residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range for 1 of 3 residents reviewed, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: Record review of a community reported complaint received by the Rhode Island Department of Health on 7/11/2024 alleges, Resident ID #1 lost 20 pounds in 5 weeks while a resident at the facility. Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Loss/ Gain Protocol and Heights states in part, .All residents are to be weighed upon admission and at least monthly; so as to monitor for weight loss or gain, to assess for underlying causes of weight loss or gain, to intervene accordingly and timely to allow for an optimal level of well-being .For purpose of this policy, a significant weight discrepancy is defined as .A weight change of 3 pounds or more in one week (if resident on weekly weights) .A loss/gain of 5% or greater…
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 · D2024-05-16 · 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
Based on record review, resident representative interview, and staff interview it has been determined that the facility failed to complete a discharge summary that includes, but is not limited to, a final summary of the resident's status at discharge and a reconciliation of the resident's medications for 1 of 2 discharged residents reviewed, Resident ID #2. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility policy titled, Medication Reconciliation Process states in part, It is the policy of this facility to perform medication reconciliation for every resident upon admission, transfer or discharge .when a resident is discharged /transferred, a listing of all medications is to be provided as part of the discharge process utilizing the inter-agency transfer form .the nurse is to give a copy of the transfer form to the resident/resident representative for their records . Record review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 4/25/2024 indicates that Resident ID #2's family is alleging that s/he was neglected during his/her respite stay 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.
“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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-07-18
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARNOLD, KELLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 10% | since 12/31/2024 |
| BIGNEY, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 70% | since 12/31/2024 |
| RYAN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 10% | since 12/31/2024 |
| RYAN, STEPHANIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 10% | since 12/31/2024 |
| CICCHELLI, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2008 |
| DOMINGOES, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/1999 |
| ROMAGNOLO, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2012 |
| HEALTH CONCEPTS LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/25/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 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 $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 415074. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-12, 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.