Cedar Hill Health Care Center
49 Cedar Hill Drive, Windsor, VT 05089 · For profit - Corporation · 39 certified beds · (802) 674-6609 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- the CMS record shows $10,358 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-15)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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 | 27.8% | 19.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.0% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 5.6% | 5.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.0% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.5% | 16.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 97.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.0% | 5.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.3% | 26.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.9% | 19.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.4% | 22.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 17.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.33 | 1.52 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.47 | 2.88 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
33.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 33 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 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 33.6%CMS range 23.8–46.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 6.3–13.7 | 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 | 57.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 39.4% | 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 | 51.5% | 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 | 87.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 12.8% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.4–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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 39 beds and averages 34.3 residents a day — about 88% 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 4.97 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.03 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.05 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 3.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.40 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.27 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-06-20 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — widespreadMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 each resident had access to an effective call system at their bedside for 2 of 21 residents sampled (Resident #1 and #7). This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: 1. During unit observations and resident interview on 6/17/24 at 3:03 PM, Resident #1 was observed sitting in a recliner in their room trying to get assistance to go to the bathroom. Resident #1 was asked by the Surveyor if they could ring their call bell to alert staff that s/he needed assistance. The Resident stated that s/he had been ringing and ringing and nobody was coming. The Surveyor pushed the call light button, and nothing happened. Resident #1 was pleading for help to get to the bathroom. The Surveyor went to get a Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) to assist. The LNA stated that s/he was not aware that Resident #1 was in need of assistance. The LNA also stated that the call lights don't work a lot of the time, and that the residents have been given hand bells…
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 · E2024-06-20 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 4 sampled licensed nursing assistants (LNAs) and 2 of 2 sampled Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were assessed for competency in the skills required to care for the resident needs based on resident care plans. Findings include: 1. Review of 1 LNA education and competency file revealed an orientation checklist that was signed off by another LNA; however, there was no evidence that the LNA was assessed for competency by a licensed nurse. 2. Review of the education and competency file for 1 LPN who was hired on 5/29/2024 revealed no evidence that they were assessed for competency in the skills needed to care for the residents. 3. Review of the education and competency file for 1 LPN who was hired on 8/23/17 revealed no evidence of annual competency evaluation of the skills needed to care for the residents. Durning interview on 6/19/2024 at 2:04 PM the Director of Nursing and the Human Resource Director confirmed that there was no evidence that the above LNAs and LPNs had been assessed for competency.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 resident and staff interviews and record review the facility failed to report an incident of alleged abuse to the state licensing agency for 1 resident (Resident #30) of 21 sampled residents. Findings include: Per resident interview on 6/19/24 at 11:36 AM Resident #30 stated that a staff member on the overnight shift had made a fist at her/him and stated, You can't even walk. I can knock the shit out of you. Resident #30 stated that s/he had reported this incident to a Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) that morning. Per record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy [last reviewed on 1/27/23], Reporting of all alleged violations are brought to the charge nurse and then the nurse on call. The nurse on call notifies the director of nursing and the administrator. The Director of Nursing, administrator, or designate will notify the state agency ([NAME]), Adult Protective Services [APS] . On 6/19/24 at 12:02 an interview was conducted with the DON [Director of Nursing] and 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 before2024-06-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon interview and record review, the facility failed to revise resident care plans related to fall prevention for 1 resident [Res.#25] of 21 sampled residents. Findings include: Per review of the facility's Falls-Clinical Protocol policy, the staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls. [Nursing Services Policy and Procedure Manual for Long Term Care- revised March 2018] Review of the facility's Nursing Floor Communication Resource reveals under 'Falls' Update the resident's care plan with a new intervention EVERY time a fall occurs with the resident. An interview was conducted with the facility's Director of Nursing [DON] on 6/19/24 at 9:09 AM. The DON stated that the facility's procedure after a resident fall is to update the resident's care plan with new intervention[s] to prevent future falls. The DON confirmed that incident reports and Nursing Notes documented Res.#25 suffering falls on 12/8/23, 12/10/23, 1/8/24, 1/10/24 and 3/24/24. The DON confirmed that Res.#25's care plan contained no new interventions to prevent…
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 · D2024-06-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that records are complete, readily accessible, and systematically organized related to a resident's required pharmacy review for 1 out of 5 sampled residents (Resident # 3). Findings include: Per record review, Resident # 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no evidence in the record that pharmacist conducted a monthly medical record review since admission. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/18/2024 at approximately 3:30 PM s/he stated that the facility recently changed pharmacy providers. The new pharmacist visited the facility and removed the previous pharmacy recommendations from paper charts and brought them home to review. The DON confirmed at the time of interview that the pharmacy recommendations were not on site or in Resident # 3's medical record. The DON stated that the pharmacist was currently on vacation and was unsure if s/he would be able to obtain the reviews. The DON was able to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-04-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that resident personal and medical information was maintained in a secure and confidential manner, so that others would not have access to it for 1 of 19 sampled residents and 1 of 2 medication carts with identifying information for all residents. Findings include: 1. Per observation on 4/20/2022 at 2:11 PM a sign was posted on the outside of the door, toward the hallway of room [ROOM NUMBER] that stated: Infection Prevention and Control Policy for Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus (COVID 19); Room log: Residents with suspected or confirmed Coronavirus (COVID 19); Residents name: [The resident's name was written in]; Employee or Visitor Name: Date: Time In: Time Out: An employee had signed in on 4/19/22 at 7:20 AM and 9:30 AM. This sign in sheet was located on the door next to a sign that stated STOP: Modified DROPLET PRECAUTIONS. Visitors MUST report to Nursing Station before entering. visitors and staff must: Wear a mask…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-04-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care for 2 of 19 sampled residents in a standard survey sample were revised to reflect necessary care and services. (Residents #9, and #15). Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/18/2022 at 11:50 am, Resident #9 was sitting in the common area in a wheelchair without footrests. A licensed nursing assistant (LNA) asked her/him to pick up her/his feet and began to push the resident to the dining room. The resident did lift her/his feet up while the LNA pushed her/him to the dining room although she/he did put her/his feet down a few times during the transport. Observation on 4/18/22 at 11:52 AM, revealed a pair of wheelchair foot pedals on top of Resident #9's dresser in her/his room. Review of Resident #9's care plan revealed, has limited physical mobility r/t [related to] Parkinson's Disease, dementia and a non-repaired left hip fracture with the following intervention Resident needs assistance with moving [pronoun omitted] scoot w/c [wheelchair] but can also self-propel short distances.…
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 · E2022-04-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals are stored in accordance with accepted professional standards for 1 of 2 medication carts. Findings include: Observation on 4/20/22 10:50 AM - 11:03 AM revealed an unlocked medication cart. The nurse was observed behind a tall wall in the nurses station that separated the nurses station from the medication carts and prohibited a constant visual of the medication cart. Upon the nurses return to the medication cart at 11:03 AM, s/he immediately locked the medication cart.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary environment, specifically in one shared resident bathroom for 2 of 22 resident rooms. Findings include: During unit observations on 4/18/2022 at 11:45 AM and 3:30 PM, in the bathroom located between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] there was dried splattered feces on the wall next to the toilet. This was observed again the next day, on 4/19/2022 at 2:24 PM. On 4/19/2022 at 2:24 PM the Environmental Manager (EM) was shown the feces on the wall next to the toilet. The EM stated Okay, the housekeeper has not been in here today because the residents were in and out of the bathroom all day. As you can see the trash is full and has not been emptied. When told that the feces had been there the prior day s/he stated I will get [her/him] in here now to clean this.
- No harm found · B2023-04-19 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to provide notice of changes in coverage by Medicare for three of three sampled residents (Residents #11, #30, and #4). Findings include: Per record review, Residents #11, #30, and #4 were provided with the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) for services that would no longer be covered by Medicare due to no longer being necessary. These 3 Residents did not receive a Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). All 3 Residents remained in the facility after coverage ended. Per interview on 4/18/23 at approximately 11:30 AM, the Director of Financial Services confirmed that Residents who remained in the facility after the coverage end date had not been receiving a NOMNC to date.
- No harm found · B2023-04-19 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to provide facility transfer notices prior to transfer for residents and/or their representatives, and to send the same transfer notice (or a copy of it) to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 10 out of 10 sampled residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #7, #8, #10, #11, #13, #18 and #38). Findings include: Record review on 04/18/23 of a hospitalization for Resident #18 shows this resident was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on the date of 01/14/23 with no evidence found of a transfer notice being provided to the resident or resident representative. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 04/18/23 revealed that the facility has not provided transfer or discharge notices to any of their residents or to the Ombudsman in the past year. The DNS stated this was, an oversight maybe due to staffing changes. On 04/19/23 An Action Summary list was provided to this surveyor showing ten ER transfers from 04/17/22 through 04/18/23. The list was comprised of all resident ER transfers in…
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 · B2023-04-19 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to provide a written copy of a Bed-Hold notice to residents and/or their representatives prior to transfer or discharge or in case of emergency, within 24 hours for 3 of 10 sampled residents (Residents #18, #8, and #7). Findings include: Record review on 04/18/23 of a hospitalization for Resident #18 shows this resident was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on the date of 01/14/23 with no evidence found of a written Bed-Hold notice being given to the resident or resident representative. At the time of the record review the Director of Nursing was asked if s/he could provide evidence of the required Bed-Hold Notice but s/he could not produce this. It was noted that the Bed-Hold Notice is provided in the facility's admission packet and reviewed with residents or their representatives upon admission, however Federal regulations require facilities to issue two notices related to bed-hold policies. On 04/19/23 An Action Summary list was provided to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2023-04-19 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to update the required posted staffing information at the beginning of each shift. Findings include: On 4/19/23 at 9:30 am, 11:00 am and 12:18 pm, observation of the facility's staffing posting in the lobby revealed that the schedule posted was dated for 4/18/23. The posting was not updated at the beginning of each shift as required.
“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
$10,358 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,358 — penalty dated 2025-12-15
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 MARY LOUISE SAYLES REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 82% | since 05/16/2024 |
| HORN, PATRICIA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 18% | since 01/01/2004 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $9K 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 475046. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-20, 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.