Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab
30 Porter Drive, Middlebury, VT 05753 · Non profit - Corporation · 98 certified beds · (802) 388-4001 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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) | 5 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 | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 17.5% | 19.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.2% | 13.0% | 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 | 5.9% | 5.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.5% | 16.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.3% | 97.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.7% | 5.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.7% | 26.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.7% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.7% | 78.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.2% | 22.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 17.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.17 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.00 | 2.88 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 239 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.2% 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 121 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 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 60.0%CMS range 53.8–64.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.2%CMS range 5.6–11.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 61.2% | 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 | 51.2% | 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 | 64.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 95.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.7% | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.3–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 98 beds and averages 95.4 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.81 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.17 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.08 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain dignity and respect for 1 of 6 residents sampled (Resident #1). Findings include: Per interview on 1/13/26 at 11:20 AM, Resident #1 described their experience during a transfer to bed. According to the resident, as their feet began to slide on the floor, the LNA assisting them said, shh. The resident told the LNA to call for assistance, then yelled out for the staff themselves. After this, the LNA called for help. The resident recalled feeling rushed during the transfer. Once in bed, the staff member asked, Do I have anything to worry about? The resident felt this exchange was disrespectful. Per interview with the Administrator on 1/13/26 at 12:15 PM, she confirmed the resident's perspective of the interaction. Per the facility policy titled Resident Rights, effective date 7/8/24, states, You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. The facility addressed the noncompliance before the investigation visit. Per the Administrator, a Plan of Correction (POC) was implemented around 12/25/25. The POC…
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 before2025-08-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include:Per review of the facility's Food Safety Systems: Surveillance, Prevention, and Control policy [last revised 7/2024] states, b. All opened or prepared foods will be stored in an approved container (with the appropriate cover), labeled with a description of the food item and the date prepared or opened.C. Labeling.b. TCS [Temperature Controlled for Safety] foods shall be labeled with common name of the food, date the food was made and use by date.TCS food is discarded if not used within 7 days.Per observation of the kitchen freezer on 8/25/25 at 10:41 AM, there was a five-pound bag of diced strawberries that was opened and undated. There was a bag of cut chicken and a bag of frozen meatballs that were opened and not dated. Per interview with the Dietary Manager on 8/25/25 at approximately 10:43 AM it was confirmed that these items in the freezer…
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 · D2025-08-27 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services for 1 applicable resident (Resident #79) diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Findings include:Per record review, Resident #79 has a diagnosis of post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD) and, as a result, suffers from nightmares and sleep disturbances. Per review of Resident #79's Plan of care meeting notes dated 7/7/25, it mentions how Patient said [he/she] continues to have nightmares and wants to follow-up with provider. Nursing agreed to direct that concern to provider.Per interview with Resident #79 on 8/25/25 at 12:39 PM, s/he reported that nobody here is following up with him/her for psychological services. S/he reports that they have asked many times to have a psychologist to support them with their PTSD. The Resident reports s/he asks every care meeting to get a psychologist or someone from psych services to talk to, but they have not initiated it. Resident #79 reports s/he has tried…
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 · D2025-08-27 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were not 5% or greater. The total error rate for all observations was calculated at 6.45%. There were 31 medication administration opportunities observed, resulting in 2 errors for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #71) due to not following administration recommendations and not accurately documenting medication administration. Findings include:Per observation on 8/27/25 at 8:34 AM, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) began the process of administering medications to Resident #71. Five medications were crushed together, poured into a medicine cup with yogurt, and Polyethylene glycol 3350 (MiraLAX, a drug prescribed for constipation) was mixed into a half-full 9-oz cup of water. The mixed crushed medications were administered to the resident, and the resident marginally consumed the Polyethylene glycol 3350 and water mixture. The LPN disposed of the remainder of the Polyethylene glycol 3350 and water mixture. Per interview on 8/27/25 at 8:41 AM, the LPN confirmed Polyethylene glycol…
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 · D2025-08-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store medications and biologicals within expiration dates, and safely for 1 of 6 residents (resident #17). Per observation and interview on [DATE] at 11:28 AM of the Medication Storage room on Memory Care Unit, with the Unit Manager, the following items were found and confirmed expired: 28 Vacutainer blood collection tubes (a sterile glass or plastic test tube with a colored rubber stopper facilitating the drawing of blood) expired on [DATE] 15 ESwab collection and transport sampling tubes (is used to collect clinical specimens containing aerobic (are bacteria that can grow and live when oxygen is present), anaerobic (are germs that can survive and grow where there is no oxygen) and fastidious bacteria (are microorganisms that are difficult to cultivate in the lab due to their complex or limited nutritional and/or environmental requirements) from the collection site, and transport them to the testing laboratory) expired on [DATE] 2 Micro-Kill Bleach…
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 before2024-06-05 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety by leaving a used ice scoop in the ice machine. The facility also failed to monitor the temperatures of refrigerators and freezers daily and report abnormal values for further intervention. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 6/3/24 at 10:32 AM with the lead chef it was discovered that the ice scoop was found lying on the ice in the ice machine that is used for 3 out of 3 kitchenettes. Per facility policy of Storage of Food and Non-Food Items reads, Store scoop in storage bin .Do not store the provided ice scoop in the machine. The lead chef confirmed that the ice scoop was in the ice machine per interview at 10:35 AM and 11:06 AM. On 6/3/24 at 10:47 AM in the main dining room meal service area it was discovered that the refrigerator temperature log for 6/3/24 was documented as 44 [degrees] in the AM temperature log. The AM freezer log temperature was not documented. Per record review of the Recording…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-05 · tag F0699 — patternProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive trauma-informed care that mitigates triggers that may re-traumatize residents for 3 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #33, #71, and #34). Findings include: 1) Per record review, Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), anxiety, and depression. Resident #33's care plan includes a focus of alterations in mood related to the diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, and depression, with manifestations that include negative verbalizations about others, tearfulness, sudden mood changes, anger, and self-harming behavior at times. A mental health clinician assessment note dated 1/26/24 mentions details of Resident #33's past trauma. Per review of Resident #33's record, no evidence was found that the resident was assessed for triggers that may re-traumatize the resident. No evidence was found in Resident 33's plan of care regarding the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-05 · tag F0887 — patternEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each eligible resident receives the COVID-19 vaccine for 2 of 5 sampled residents on the rehabilitation unit (Residents #39 and #60). Findings include: 1. Per record review, Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include cerebral palsy (disorder of movement that affects muscle tone, and posture, developed before birth), spinal bifida (failure of the spinal completely close), chronic stage 4 pressure ulcers (deep wounds that may expose bone, tendon or muscle), and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone), The Resident #39 is currently receiving negative pressure wound therapy to treat the stage 4 pressure ulcers. Resident # 39 is considered high risk for COVID-19 complications because of his/her diagnoses. Per record review, Resident #39's last COVID-19 vaccination was administered on 5/21/21 and was not provided the 2023-2024 seasonal COVID-19 immunization. There is no evidence in the record that Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · 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 upon interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice regarding Physician Orders and notification for 1 resident [Res.#83] of 35 sampled residents. Findings include: Per record review, after a stay in the hospital, Res. # 83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with acute back pain. The resident was placed on a post-hospitalization nursing unit, where resident's vital signs, including their blood pressure, are measured at least twice a day. Res. #83's blood pressure upon admission to the facility was recorded as 121/75. Physician Orders for Res.#83 upon admission included: Notify provider . for: Systolic Blood Pressure: less than 100 mmHg. Review of Nursing Notes for Res.#83 included the resident's vital signs, including blood pressures. If Res.#83's blood pressure is below 90 systolic [The first (upper) number] the number is preceded by a red !, which per the electronic medical record program indicates abnormal. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to include residents, to the extent practicable, in their care plan meetings and failed to document in the resident's medical record resident participation, or to document if the resident's participation is determined not practical for the development of the resident's care plan, for 3 of 19 residents (Residents #60, #71 and #51). Findings include: #1) On 05/01/23 at 11:11 AM during an interview with Resident #60, when asked if s/he had been included in the resident's care plan meetings, the resident replied that s/he has never heard of a care plan. S/he further stated s/he has no resident representative who would attend a meeting on his/her behalf. This resident was alert and able to voice concerns clearly during the interview. Record review shows Resident #60 was admitted on [DATE] and reveals a BIMS score of 13 (Brief Interview for Mental Status -a tool used to identify a resident's cognitive functioning, with 8-12 indicating moderately impaired…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANDERSON, NOMA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| COLLINS, ANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2021 |
| COTEL, SIVAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| CUNNINGHAM, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| CURRAN, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| DEPPMAN, BENJ | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2023 |
| DOUCET, JULIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| DULEY, VICTORIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| DWYER, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| EISINGER, DOMINIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| FARMHAM, KIM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| FOOTE, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| GOLONKA, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| HART, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| LOVEJOY, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2021 |
| MCCULLOUGH, DEENA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| ORTMYER, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/18/2023 |
| PAGE, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| RUGGE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| RUZICKA, SMITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| STICKNEY, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2015 |
| VAN VOORST, HELENA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2021 |
| VICENCIO, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| WALKER, KARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| COMEAU, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/24/2021 |
| VAUGHAN, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/28/2022 |
| PORTER MEDICAL CENTER INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/02/2026 |
| FROMHOLD, KAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2016 |
| MERCURE, ALLISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/15/2025 |
| WALKER, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/19/2024 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT HEALTH NETWORK INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/18/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 60 rows in the source record cover these 31 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners 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 $1.6M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in VT
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 Vermont 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 475017. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-27, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.