Home / Massachusetts / Braintree
1102 Washington Street, Braintree, MA 02184 · Norfolk County · (781) 848-3100
177 certified beds, about 115 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225445 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 11, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since July 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $27,648 in the last three years; the largest was $16,452, and the latest is dated June 26, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 5.21 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
26.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a physician's order for nursing to monitor his/her oxygenation saturations (measures the percentage of hemoglobin binding sites in the bloodstream occupied by oxygen) levels, which included to notify the physician if his/her saturation levels dropped below a specific percentage, the Facility failed to ensure his/her physician was notified of changes in his/her oxygen saturation levels, when Resident #1's levels fell below the physicians ordered percentage parameters on multiple occasions, and the physician was not notified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a person-centered comprehensive care plan was developed and/or implemented for three Residents (#21, #90, and #9), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:1. For Resident #21, to develop and implement a potential/at risk for skin breakdown care plan and an actual skin alteration care plan for a chronic burn/wound requiring monitoring and wound care;2. For Resident #90, to implement interventions on the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Fall care plans specific to transfer and ambulation status; and3. For Resident #9, to develop and implement an individualized resident centered care plan for a known history of insomnia.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure individualized comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised to accurately reflect care needs for one Resident (#90), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised after a significant change in October 2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#21), out of a total sample of 25 residents, received necessary treatment and services to promote healing of an alteration in skin integrity related to a burn of third degree (involves all layers of skin and sometime muscle/fat under the tissue) of left lower limb. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately transcribe and implement wound care orders per the hospital discharge summary and physician's orders for two months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure appropriate holding temperatures for time/temperature control for safety (TCS) foods;2. Handle ready-to-eat food (food which does not require cooking or further preparation prior to consumption) to prevent cross contamination; and3. Ensure kitchenettes were maintained in a clean, sanitary, and organized manner, and food was properly stored, labeled, and dated in four of four kitchenettes.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record was maintained for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the percentage of lunch consumed was accurately documented after the meal was provided and fed to Resident #5 on 17 of 35 days reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed, for one Resident (#9), out of a total sample of 25 residents, to notify the Resident's attending physician of a potential adverse effect from a newly started medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#9), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medication recommendations for Resident #9 were communicated to and addressed by the Attending Physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure treatment carts were locked when not in direct supervision of the licensed nurse on one of four units observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information which included the current date and actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff including Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), and Certified Nurse Aides (CNA), and the resident census was posted daily as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #1), who resided on a secured unit, made verbal statements to staff a desire to leave the Facility, had a Guardianship in place, and a care plan that indicated that he/she would remain within the Facility unless supervised, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with an adequate level of staff supervision to maintain his/her safety in an effort to prevent an elopement. On 6/23/25, Resident #1 exited the secure second-floor unit (B2), unsupervised and unbeknownst to staff, through a locked and alarmed door which lead to a fire escape. At the time of the elopement, three staff members working on the B2 Unit, failed to recognize that the sounding alarm had been triggered by the opening of the door leading to the fire escape and instead mistook the alarm for a malfunction. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for three of three sampled residents (Resident #1, #2, and #3), who all resided on a locked, secured unit (B1), were on scheduled safety checks by unit staff, and required staff supervision, both on and off the unit, the Facility failed to ensure they provided an adequate level of staff supervision, which included unit staff responding adequately to exit door alarms, to prevent an incident of elopement. On [DATE] at approximately 11:17 P.M., Residents #1, #2, and #3, exited through the locked and alarmed door of their unit undetected by staff, made their way onto the elevator, proceeded to the main entrance/exit door leading to the parking lot, exited through the front alarmed door and proceeded to walk away from the facility. Although a staff member saw the residents get off of the elevator, she did not question them or alert other staff. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a monthly medication regimen review was completed once per month for five out of five Residents (#3, #13, #117, #79, and #88) selected for unnecessary medication review and one out of one Resident (#94) reviewed for medication side effects. Specifically, the facility failed to have a licensed pharmacist conduct a drug regimen review for each resident in the months of May, June, July, and August 2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean, comfortable, and homelike. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the resident common areas (activity rooms, pub/parlor/dining rooms) were maintained in good repair (without holes, painted) and homelike on units M2 and B2.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Advance Directives (written documents that instruct health care providers of the decisions for specific medical treatment if a person was unable to speak or lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves) were formulated and maintained in the medical record for one Resident (#106), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Advanced Directives were reviewed, documented, valid, and maintained in the medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#35) with a gastrostomy tube, of a total sample of 25 residents, that medications were administered in accordance with the physician's order and Professional Standards of Practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Nurse #3 followed the physician's order when administering each of the Resident's medications via the gastrostomy tube (GT).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice prior to administration for 1 of 4 medication carts reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to: -For Residents #47, #82, and #117, ensure staff did not pre-pour medications and store them in the medication cart; and -Ensure Schedule II-V controlled substance medications were maintained in a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed for one Resident (#106), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed for Resident #106, to accurately code the use of anticoagulant (blood thinner to prevent blood clots) and antiplatelet (stops platelets from clumping together and forming blood clots) medications on 11 out of 11 MDS assessments reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that dignity was provided during the dining experience for seven Residents (#9, #33, #27, #37, #51, #76 and #77), out of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that: 1. For Residents #9, #33, #37, #51, #76 and #77, staff did not provide a towel as a clothing protector while eating; 2. For Residents #9, #27, #33, #46, #51, #77, staff delivered meals to all residents seated at the table simultaneously, resulting in residents waiting an extended period of time to receive their meal while watching their tablemates eat; and 3. For Resident #51, did not stand over the Resident while feeding him/her in the dining room.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the rehab consultant's contract and policy, review of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) guidelines, review of Massachusetts law, and interviews, the facility failed to provide skilled physical therapy services in accordance with professional standards when the physical therapist is supervising the physical therapist assistant from an offsite setting and when providing telehealth physical therapy. In addition, based on observations, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their falls policy after Resident #107 fell. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Provide regularly scheduled, documented collaboration between the physical therapist and the physical therapy assistant regarding patient care; 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision for one Resident (#62), out of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #61's eye examination recommendations, to be seen and evaluated by a glaucoma specialist, were implemented.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 29 residents, to ensure effective interventions were implemented to prevent three unwitnessed falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist identified and reported irregularities (use of a medication that is inconsistent with accepted standards of practice) and/or recommendations were addressed by the physician or physician extender for three Residents (#13, #37, and #70), out of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #13, ensure the consultant pharmacist's recommendations were addressed to ensure there was a stop date for an as needed (prn) Klonopin (anticonvulsant used as adjunct therapy for psychosis) as required, and an appropriate indication for antipsychotic therapy was identified on the physician's order; 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility: 1. Failed to ensure 1 of 4 kitchenettes was maintained in a sanitary manner to prevent potential illness or contamination of food; and 2. Failed to ensure the snack cart on the M2 Unit was maintained in a sanitary manner to prevent potential illness or contamination of food while serving snacks to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the arbitration agreement presented to residents in the admission packet included the required information for two Residents (#31 and #96), out of a sample of three records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that laundry room personnel performed hand hygiene after handling soiled linens and wore appropriate personal protective equipment when handling soiled linens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program on one (M2 Unit) of four units reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#11) had running hot and cold water in their bathroom, out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed for one Resident (#51), out of four residents with restraints, from a total sample of 29 residents, to ensure a pelvic restraint was used for the least amount of time as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for one Resident (#58), of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of mistreatment by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was reported, thoroughly investigated, and action was taken to protect the Resident pending the outcome of the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse by one Resident (#58) was reported to the Department of Public Health's (DPH) Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS) within the required two hour time frame, out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that all allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for one Resident (#58), of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 2/17/23, was thoroughly investigated and protected the Resident pending the outcome of the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Risk for Falls care plan was individualized with appropriate interventions after a fall for one Resident (#84), out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed for one Resident (#16) to provide an ongoing activity program to meet and support the individual preferences of the Resident, out of a total sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident's television (TV) was functioning so the Resident could watch their preferred show.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the care and treatment of residents with catheters was provided per standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to position catheter bags off the floor to prevent the risk for infection for one Resident (#29), out of 29 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and maintenance of oxygen administration equipment was provided for one Resident (#33), out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#13) medication regime was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, in a sample of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (prn) medication order for Klonopin (anticonvulsant used as adjunct therapy for psychosis) was limited to 14 days, then evaluated by the physician as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly stored and labeled in accordance with current accepted professional standards in 1 of 4 medication carts reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to include and identify the Home Health Aide (HHA) role of care between the facility and the hospice provider, in the person-centered hospice care plan for one Resident (#22), out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for one Resident (#29), out of a total sample of 29 residents, who was transferred to an acute care facility on two occasions that the Resident, and/or representative were provided with a Discharge/Transfer Notice upon transfer.
19 fire safety citations on file: 12 on December 11, 2025, 5 on September 26, 2024, 2 on July 3, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 26, 2025 | Fine | $11,196 |
| September 26, 2024 | Fine | $16,452 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 5.21 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.83 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.37 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.35 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 26.9% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.46 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 5.36 on weekdays and 4.83 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.90 in April to June 2025 to 5.21 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 5.21 | 0.49 | 5.36 | 4.83 | 3.4% | 1 of 90 | 115 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.06 | 0.36 | 5.20 | 4.68 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.22 | 0.45 | 5.34 | 4.90 | 4.5% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.90 | 0.54 | 5.11 | 4.37 | 2.1% | 0 of 91 | 114 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.61 | 3.94 | 3.41 | 5.0% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $21.32 to $23.94 | 38,130 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.57 | $34.91 to $40.66 | 13,210 |
| Registered nurses | $50.27 | $42.05 to $65.44 | 88,200 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.1 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 48.2 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.7 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.8 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Affinity Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 51.5% · Massachusetts: 121 better, 19 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 10 eligible stays.
13.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Massachusetts: 4 better, 15 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 49 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Massachusetts: 5 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 22 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Massachusetts51.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Massachusetts0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 19 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Massachusetts2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 19 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Median of homes: Massachusetts99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: AFFINITY HEALTHCARE LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braintree Opco, LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Hagar, Chaim | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Nachfolger, Israel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Rosenfeld, Baruch | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Stein, Allen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Gauthier, Suzanne | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/07/2024 | |
| Noble, Douglas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Ostrem, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Stein, Allen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Hagar, Chaim | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Nachfolger, Israel | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Rosenfeld, Baruch | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Stein, Allen | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Amcha Braintree LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2024 | |
| Gauthier, Suzanne | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/23/2025 | |
| Hagar, Chaim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Nachfolger, Israel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Ostrem, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/23/2025 | |
| Rosenfeld, Baruch | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Stein, Allen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.