The Manor, Inc.
577 Washington Highway, Morrisville, VT 05661 · Non profit - Corporation · 72 certified beds · (802) 888-8700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607) — most recent Dec 2024
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $140,856 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-16)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 3 to 2 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 | 26.7% | 19.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 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 | 3.0% | 5.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.2% | 16.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.4% | 5.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.5% | 26.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.8% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.8% | 1.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 78.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.5% | 22.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.3% | 17.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.06 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.05 | 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.
45.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 55 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 28 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 45.0%CMS range 33.9–58.9 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.9–15.8 | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 32.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.4% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 8.1% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 2.7–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.16 | 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 72 beds and averages 66.7 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 5 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 4.19 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 3.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.30 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-16 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by staff for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #1). As a result of the deficient practice, Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital and had a sexual assault nurse exam where genital tearing was detected. Using the reasonable person concept, Resident #1 would likely experience severe adverse psychosocial outcomes related to the event. Findings include: Per record review, Resident #1 has diagnoses that include Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and failure to thrive. Resident #1's care plan reveals that s/he has a history of domestic abuse (dated 1/5/24) and requires assistance of two staff for bed mobility, personal hygiene, and toileting (dated 6/9/23). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS; a comprehensive assessment used as a care-planning tool) dated 10/10/24 reveals that Resident #1 has long term and short term memory problems and is severely cognitively…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 interviews and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a policy related to screening of potential employees to include a national background checks for all employees. Findings include: Per interview on 11/12/24 at 1:25 PM, the DON [Director of Nursing] confirmed that the facility substantiated that LNA #1 sexually assaulted Resident #1 on 11/6/24. Per record review of LNA #1's human resource file there was no national background check completed for LNA #1. Per interview with the Human Resources Director and the Administrator on 11/12/24 at 11:30 AM, it was confirmed that the facility did not do a national background check for LNA #1. Per record review, LNA #1 worked for 73 days from date of employment on 8/26/24 to the date of the incident on 11/6/24 without a national background check in his/her employee record. LNA #1 worked on all units of the building, putting all residents at risk for serious harm or injury. A sample of five employees' files were reviewed for national background…
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 · G2024-02-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received care in accordance with professional standards of practice related to the worsening of an arterial ulcer that resulted in a Staphylococcus (Staph) infection (an infection caused by a bacteria commonly found on the skin) for 1 of 23 residents sampled (Resident #35). Findings include: Per record review Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include venous insufficiency (leg veins become damaged causing blood to pool in your legs. This increased pressure in your leg veins causes symptoms like swelling and ulcers), and chronic venous ulcers of bilateral lower extremities (leg ulcers caused by problems with blood flow in your leg veins. They may heal and then open back up chronically). An admission nursing progress note dated 12/13/23 reveals that on admission to the facility the resident had venous wounds to medial (inner) right ankle and right lower shin. Per documented Wound…
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 · F2026-04-15 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Per interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 48 of 48 contracted nursing staff (licensed nursing staff and licensed nursing assistants) obtained through staffing agencies have the specific competencies necessary to care for residents' needs as identified through resident assessments and the plan of care. This has the potential to affect all residents. Findings include: Per review of 2 LNA (Licensed Nursing Assistant) employee records (1 permanent LNA and 1 contracted LNA), required competencies for resident care were missing for the LNA contracted through Clipboard Health (service used to fill staffing gaps).Per interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/15/2026 at 12:11 PM, she stated that they do not always provide the facility training to new staff especially agency because they don't know how long they are going to stay. It is a challenge to hire new staff, and they have gone back and forth about whether or not to offer the training on hire or wait until later. In regard to the Clipboard staff (staffing agency), they are required to read through 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 · D2026-04-15 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to privacy was maintained while receiving person care for 2 of 18 sampled residents (Resident #4 and Resident #33). Findings include: Per observations on 4/13/2026 at 1:40 PM, Resident #33 was being assisted with incontinence care by a Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) with the door to the hall open. At this time, Resident #4 was also in their bed across the room, the curtain was not drawn between them. Another LNA entered the room and closed the door. Two of Resident #4's family members arrived and entered the room. The privacy curtain was still open, and Resident #33 was visible. On 4/14/2026 at approximately 3:30 PM, Resident #4 was observed in bed receiving personal care with 3 LNAs in the room, the door to the hall was wide open. Resident #4 was exposed on their bed. When one of the LNA's saw the surveyors, she closed the door. Per interview on 4/15/2026 at 12:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that LNAs should have provided the residents privacy by drawing the privacy curtain…
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 · D2026-04-15 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
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 a physician supervised and provided consultation or treatment when contacted by the facility for 1 of 18 Residents in the sample (Resident #52). Findings include:During an interview with Resident #52 on 4/13/2026 at 11:30AM, s/he was observed scratching both of their arms. The Resident stated that s/he had been itching for about three weeks, and s/he thinks it is a seasonal thing. The Resident stated that s/he had asked for medication to help. Observation of the Resident's arms revealed deep scratches on both upper and lower arms. Resident #52 has a care plan focus related to skin reflects - 3/27/2026: self-inflicted scratches to right dorsum hand - resolved- 3/27/2026: self-inflicted scratches to right wrist - resolved- 4/5/26: open lesion/self-inflicted scratches to left hand- 4/11/26: self-inflicted scratches to left forearm Interventions include Report abnormalities, failure to heal, [signs and symptoms] of infection, maceration etc. to MD. Per record review a Health Status Note dated 3/27/2026…
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 · D2026-04-15 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that physicians reviewed the resident's total program of care at required physician visits for 2 of 18 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #33). Findings include:1.) Per record review Resident #33 has diagnoses that include dementia, anxiety, osteoporosis, cachexia (a complex metabolic syndrome characterized by involuntary weight loss, muscle wasting, and often fat loss associated with chronic or severe illness), gastroesophageal reflux, adult failure to thrive, pressure ulcer of the sacral region, malnutrition, and depression, bipolar disorder, and dysphagia (painful and/of difficult swallowing). Physician/Provider regulatory visit progress notes from 3/25/2025 - 3/24/2026 do not document a total review of care for Resident #33. The Physician documented at each visit that the Resident was currently taking two medications that were not ordered, Vitamin B-12 1000 MCG tablet once daily and Diflucan 100 MG daily. Per review of current Physician's orders neither of the medications were ordered. Per record review,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-15 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that infection control measures regarding hand hygiene were followed during medication administration for 2 of 2 (Resident #26 and Resident #28) residents sampled. Findings include:During observation of medication administration on 4/14/2026 at 8:22 AM, an LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) did not perform hand hygiene by either using hand sanitizer or soap and water as required before or after wearing gloves, when preparing and administering medications for Resident #26 or before or after administering eye drops and after replacing a medication patch on the back of Resident #28.Per interview on 4/14/2026 at 8:30 AM, the LPN confirmed that she did not perform hand hygiene during medication administration for Resident #26 or Resident #28 and stated that she washes her hands or uses hand sanitizer after every few medications or residents or when she completes direct care.Review of facility policy titled Hand Hygiene Policy, review date 4/2019, states that gloves do not replace hand washing/hand hygiene and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-11-25 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure that all food was stored safely and to ensure that sanitary conditions for safe food handling were maintained. This has the potential to impact all residents. Findings include:A kitchen tour was conducted on 11/25/25 at 9:15 AM. Per observation, there was an open and undated package of waffles in freezer. There was a container of rotting lettuce in the walk-in fridge. There was a container of celery uncovered in the walk-in fridge. There was a package of 14 hot dogs that was open to air and not dated. There was a container of raw chicken. There was a container of chicken sitting in chicken juices on the bottom shelf. There was an undated package of American cheese slices. There were (2) 32 ounce Dannon yogurts with an expiration date of 11/14/25. There was a container of pasta salad that expired on 11/24/25. There was an open container of 12 quarts of cream of asparagus dated 11/25/25. An interview with a Kitchen Staff Member on 11/25/25 at 9:30…
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 · D2024-12-16 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Per interview and record review that facility failed to provide abuse training prior to a substantiated sexual assault for one out of six employees sampled. Findings include: Per interview on 11/12/24 at 1:25 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility substantiated that LNA #1 sexually assaulted Resident #1 on 11/6/24. A review of all educational materials used to train staff on abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property was reviewed while investigating the allegations of sexual abuse. The education provided included a PowerPoint titled The Manor C.A.R.E.S. and Incident reporting Requirements (CMS F-609) of Crimes of Abuse, Neglect, Injuries of Unknown Origin, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Property [last revised 11/23]. The facility also has an Annual Employee Education packet that contains quizzes based on training for subjects including Incident Reporting Requirements (F-609) and Resident Rights. The facility also supplied a Harassment and Sexual Harassment policy [last revised 10/22] as well as a handout discussing Suspected Physical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, dispensing and administering drugs to meet the needs of one resident [Res.#45] of 23 sampled residents. Finding include: Review of Res.#45's medical record reveals the resident has diagnoses that include Hypertension [high blood pressure], Hypokalemia [low potassium levels in the blood], Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, restlessness and agitation, osteoarthritis of the right knee, and an Overactive bladder, Review of Physician Orders for Res.#45 include: Amlodipine tab - related to Essential Hypertension. Potassium Chloride tab- related to Hypokalemia Quetiapine tab- related to Restlessness and Agitation Diclofenac Topical Gel- for Right Knee pain Acetaminophen- for pain Myrbetriq Oral Tablet- for overactive bladder Review of the facility's 'Administering Medications' policy [Version 2.0 Revised Dec. 2021] includes Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frames. Additionally, the policy states…
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 · D2024-02-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 the physician documented a duration of use or rational for extending the use for an as needed (prn) psychotropic medication for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents #51 and #10 ). Findings include: 1. Per record review Resident #51 has a Physicians order for Mirtazapine (antidepressant) 7.5mg every 24 hours as needed (PRN) related to dementia with psychotic disturbance. The order exceeds the required limit of 14 days with no specified duration or documented rational to exceed 14 days. During interview on 2/7/2024 at 2:30 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that there was no documented duration or rational for exceeding the 14 day limitation for the PRN Mirtazapine. 2. Per record review Resident #10 had an order for Lorazepam oral tablet 0.5 mg (an anti-anxiety medication) to be given every 8 hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety without a specified duration of days. This order was noted to have become active on 7/21/23. Per interview with 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 · Dcited before2024-02-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and maintain contact precautions for 1 resident [Res.# 108] of 23 sampled residents. Findings include: Per record review, Physician Orders for Res.#108 dated 1/26/24 call for Maintain contact precautions due to C-Diff unless otherwise instructed. Every shift. [Clostridioides difficile (C-Diff) is a bacterium that causes an infection of the colon. Symptoms can range from diarrhea to life-threatening damage to the colon. Because C. difficile can live outside the body, the bacteria spread easily. Not washing hands or cleaning well make it easy to spread the bacteria.] (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/c-difficile/symptoms-causes/syc-20351691) Per observation, posted on the outside of Res.#108's room is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] sign reading STOP. CONTACT PRECAUTIONS. EVERYONE MUST: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Per observation on 2/5/24 at 9:41 AM, 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.
- No harm found · C2025-04-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — widespreadHonor 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident has the right to self-determination and access to persons and services outside of the facility by locking all doors to the facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and not having a current policy and procedure that ensures residents are systematically assessed and given the ability to exercise their rights as a citizen (or resident) of the United States to make personal choices about going outside without interference. This has the potential to affect all residents of the facility and all visitors, including family, legal representatives, and advocates. Findings include: Per observation on 4/21/2025 at 10:15 AM, the survey team approached the facility's entrances from the main parking area. The entrance door opened into a foyer. A second door leading into the facility was locked. A doorbell was located to the right of the door, with instructions to press it to contact staff to open it. A staff member approached and entered a code into a keypad on the inside and opened the door for 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.
“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
$140,856 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $112,847 — penalty dated 2024-12-16
- $28,009 — penalty dated 2024-02-07
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE MANOR INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/15/1999 |
| SMITH, LYNNETTE | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/06/2006 |
| VAN VOGELPOEL, TUSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| BIRMINGHAM, LISA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/11/2023 |
| NORDER, ANGELA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2008 |
| YACOVONE, DAVE | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
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 475057. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-15, 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.