South Kingstown Nurs. & Rehab Ctr
2115 South County Trail, West Kingston, RI 02892 · For profit - Corporation · 112 certified beds · (401) 783-8568 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $14,069 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-18)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 fell from 5 to 3 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 | 30.5% | 19.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.8% | 5.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.3% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 4.2% | 3.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.4% | 16.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.6% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.6% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.9% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.6% | 22.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.0% | 22.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.7% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.1% | 78.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.7% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.8% | 14.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.09 | 1.59 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.68 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.9% 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 134 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.6% 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 59 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 54.9%CMS range 48.2–62.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 6.9–13.5 | 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 | 57.6% | 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 | 54.2% | 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 | 54.2% | 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 | 95.0% | 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 | 2.5% | 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 | 2.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.6–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 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 112 beds and averages 98.7 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.42 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.72 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-02-18 · 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 clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. Resident ID #1 was inadvertently administered multiple medications prescribed for his/her roommate, Resident ID #2. The medications included two antihypertensives (a medication prescribed to treat high blood pressure), an antidiabetic (a medication prescribed to lower high blood sugar), an antiplatelet (a medication prescribed to prevent blood clots from forming), an antiparkinsonian agent (a medication prescribed to treat Parkinson's Disease), an antidepressant (a medication prescribed to treat depression), a multivitamin, and two additional vitamins. As a result of this error, Resident ID #1 required hospitalization for hypotension (low blood pressure). Review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 2/13/2026 alleges that Resident ID #1 was inadvertently administered medications intended for another resident and s/he was subsequently transferred to the hospital after a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-12 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse and neglect for 1 of 1 resident reviewed when staff refused the resident's repeated requests for toileting assistance. Specifically, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to a continent resident, resulting in the resident being left heavily saturated in urine and forced into an incontinent episode. This failure caused actual harm, including the development of a urinary tract infection (UTI) and psychosocial harm, for Resident ID #124.Findings are as follows:Review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 4/23/2026 revealed that Resident ID #124 alleged that Nursing Assistant (NA), Staff A, refused to assist him/her to the bathroom, instead instructed him/her to void in his/her brief, and did not change him/her when requested, during third shift on 4/22/2026 into 4/23/2026. According to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed related to not getting out of bed, Resident ID #72.Findings are as follows:Record review revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility in February of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung condition that causes long-term breathing problems by limiting airflow), encephalopathy (a generalized dysfunction of the brain), and complications of colostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening in the abdominal wall, bringing a portion of the large intestine to the surface to allow stool to exit).Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15, indicating the resident is cognitively intact. Further review revealed that the resident is dependent on two staff members for…
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 · E2026-05-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality regarding not following physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident reviewed related to medications with heart rate (HR) parameters, Resident ID #38.Findings are as follows:Record review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration Safety Program revealed in part, .the physician's order must be verified before the medication is given.when medication are held/refused, the MD is to be notified timely.Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in March of 2026 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, cardiomyopathy (a disease effecting the heart muscle which causes the heart to have a harder time pumping blood), and atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm).Record review revealed the following physician's order:4/6/2026-Metoprolol tartrate 25 milligrams (mg) twice daily. The order contained instructions to hold for a heart rate below 55 beats per minute (bpm), and to notify the physician.A review of the 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 · Ecited before2026-05-12 · 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 a resident's drug regimen is free from significant medication errors for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for medication errors due to heart rate parameters, Resident ID #38. Findings are as follows:Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in March of 2026 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, cardiomyopathy (a disease effecting the heart muscle which causes the heart to have a harder time pumping blood), and atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm).Record review revealed the following physician's order:4/6/2026-Metoprolol tartrate 25 milligrams (mg) twice daily. The order contained instructions to hold for a heart rate below 55 beats per minute (bpm), and to notify the physician.A review of the April and May 2026, Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed the medication was held for a heart rate above 55 bpm on the following dates and times:4/14/2026- 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM dose- held for a heart rate of 574/22/2026- 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM dose-…
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 · D2026-05-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 resident's formulated advance directive would be followed due to inconsistency between the signed advanced directive and the electronic medical record (EMR) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a change in code status, Resident ID #86.Findings are as follows:Record review revealed a signed Advanced Directive dated 4/27/2026, indicating that the resident checked Full Code, .911 will be called. All resuscitative and aggressive measure are provided and I will be transferred to the hospital.Record review revealed a physician's order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) with a start date of 5/27/2025. This order was not discontinued until 5/8/2026, after the surveyor brought it to the facility's attention.Record review of the resident's chart revealed that DNR was also displayed on the banner at the top of his/her medical record.During a surveyor interview on 5/8/2026 at 9:47 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff D, after reviewing the resident's EMR banner and the physician's order, she stated that…
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 · D2026-05-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 a resident receives care, consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony prominence, as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with pressure ulcers, Resident ID #3.Findings are as follows:Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in March of 2026 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, dementia.Review of a care plan focus area initiated on 3/3/2026 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with pressure injuries to his/her left ankle and foot. An intervention includes, but is not limited to, monitor and treat areas to left ankle and foot, as ordered.Record review revealed a document titled, Skin Ulcer Documentation, dated 5/5/2026 which revealed the resident has a stage III pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous tissue layer) on his/her left lateral foot.Review of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with an indwelling Foley catheter (a flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and empties the urine into a drainage bag), Resident ID #3. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility reported incident received by the Rhode Island Department of Health on 4/9/2025 revealed that Resident ID #3 had a Foley catheter replaced at the facility without a physician's order. Review of Lippincott Nursing Procedures Manual Ninth Edition, last revised in 2023, states in part, .Indwelling Catheter Care and Removal .Indwelling Urinary Catheter Insertion .verify the practitioner's order . Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in December of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, obstructive (a structural or functional hindrance of normal urine flow) and reflux (a condition where there is a backflow of urine into the kidney) uropathy and retention of urine. Review of the resident's care…
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 · D2025-04-18 · 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 record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident records are complete and accurately documented, relative to narcotic medication administration, for 3 of 6 residents reviewed, Resident ID #s 2, 4, and 5. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 4/9/2025 indicated that two alert and oriented residents reported they did not receive their PRN (as needed) narcotic pain medication overnight after requesting it multiple times and that there appeared to be discrepancies between the narcotic log book and the resident's Medication Administration Records (MAR). According to the Lippincott Nursing Procedures Ninth Edition last revised in 2023 states in part, .Safe Administration Practices .Document all medications administered in the patient's MAR or EMAR [Electronic Medication Administration Record]. Include the medication strength, dose, route of administration, and date and time of administration . A. Record review revealed Resident ID #2 was…
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 · E2025-02-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store and label drugs and biological's in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms observed and 3 of 4 medication carts observed. Findings are as follows: Review of the facility policy dated 1/2021, titled, Medication Storage states in part, .POLICY: It is the policy of this facility that medications and biological's are stored properly, following manufacturers or provider pharmacy recommendations .14. Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications .should be immediately removed from stock . 1a. During a surveyor observation on 2/11/2025 at 8:50 AM of the Pond View unit medication cart, in the presence of Registered Nurse (RN), Staff A, the following was revealed: -One Wixela inhaler, opened with a date of 12/12. Review of the manufacturer's instructions indicate to discard the inhaler one month after opening. -One Arnuity inhaler, opened without a date. Review of the manufacturer's instructions indicate to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that they distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety relative to 2 of 4 units observed during the lunch meal service. Findings are as follows: According to the, State Operations Manual Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, last updated in August of 2024, states in part, .'Food Service' means the processes involved in actively serving food to the resident. When actively serving residents in a dining room or outside a resident's room where trained staff are serving food/beverage choices directly from a mobile food cart or steam table, there is no need for food to be covered. However, food should be covered when traveling a distance (i.e., down a hallway, to a different unit or floor) . A surveyor observation on 2/11/2025 at approximately 12:00 PM of the Pond View unit, revealed a sheet pan rack (a heavy-duty aluminum rack with uniformly spaced tray slides) being transported from the kitchen to the unit,…
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 before2024-09-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, staff, and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse for 2 of 2 residents reviewed, Resident ID #s 1 and 2. Findings are as follows: Record review of facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 9/30/2024 indicates that Resident ID #2 was witnessed by staff slapping Resident ID #1 on the back of his/her head at which time, Resident ID #1 then slapped the hand of Resident ID #2. Record review revealed that Resident ID #1 was admitted to the facility in November of 2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with agitation, cognitive communication deficit, adjustment disorder, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Record review for Resident ID #1 revealed a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] that revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. 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 · D2024-02-28 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for weight gain, Resident ID #11. Findings are as follows: Record review of an undated facility policy and procedure for Weight Loss/Gain Protocol and Heights, provided to the surveyor on 2/28/2024, 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 for well-being .PROCEDURE: .For purpose of this policy, a significant weight discrepancy is defined as: .A loss/gain of 5% or greater within one month .When a significant weight loss/gain is noted (as defined above), the following interventions may be considered: 1. Reweigh all residents who are reported to have significant weight discrepancy in order to assess the accuracy of the weight. The reweigh shall be done within 2…
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 · D2024-02-28 · 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 help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 resident observed specific to finger stick blood glucose testing, Resident ID #194. Findings are as follows: Record review of a facility policy titled, Diabetes - Care of equipment SECTION: Infection Control, dated 3/11/2005 states in part, .It is the policy of this facility to develop and support Infection Control practices that are designed to prevent transmission of blood borne pathogens from diabetes-care procedures .4. Dispose of used lancets [used to obtain a blood sample from a finger] at the point of use in approved sharp containers . Record review of a document titled, Competency Validation for Blood Glucose Testing states in part, .discarding the used lancet after use in the sharps container . Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in February of 2024, with a diagnosis…
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
$14,069 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $14,069 — penalty dated 2026-02-18
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RYAN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 50% | since 01/27/2000 |
| RYAN, SALLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 50% | since 01/27/2000 |
| ARNOLD, KELLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/20/2017 |
| MCGINNESS, BRIAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/22/2019 |
| PRINGLE, KISHMA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/29/2017 |
| CARRAGHER, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/27/2000 |
| HEALTH CONCEPTS LTD | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/27/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $792K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in RI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Rhode Island Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 415054. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-12, 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.