Home / Massachusetts / Belmont
34 Agassiz Avenue, Belmont, MA 02478 · Middlesex County · (617) 489-1200
156 certified beds, about 125 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225419 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 31, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 32 health citations since December 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.37 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.61 of those hours.
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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #1), who had a history of wandering, and required the use of a wander guard device for safety, the facility failed to ensure his/her device was consistently checked for function by staff, when on 2/21/26 Resident #1 was able to leave his/her unit, take the elevator to the first floor and exit the building to an outside courtyard, undetected by staff, and without triggering the wander guard alarm system. Resident #1 was outside for around 30 minutes unsupervised, before staff became aware he/she was missing off the unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to: 1. ensure respiratory care was provided consistently with professional standards of care for one Resident (#148) out of a sample of 31 residents and 2. failed to maintain respiratory equipment to ensure it was clean and prepared for use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit direct care staffing data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the entire reporting period, Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 4 2025 (July 1 - September 30), in accordance with the schedule specified by CMS.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure it implemented infection control measures for one of one applicable sampled Resident (#84) with a diagnosis of influenza. Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician orders for droplet precautions and failed to ensure staff utilized appropriate personal protective equipment in Resident #84's room and on the unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure it offered pneumococcal vaccines to 35 of 71 residents who were eligible for the vaccine.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure invitations to attend care plan meetings were provided to one Resident (#20) out of a total of 31 sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on a resident group meeting, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure concerns from the Resident Council were thoroughly documented to ensure the residents felt their concerns were acted upon timely and included the facility response to the group.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to voice and formulate grievances, have those grievances responded to promptly, and be provided a resolution to their grievance. Specifically, 1. For Resident #16, the facility failed to follow the grievance process after Resident #16 reported he/she was missing sneakers.2. Failed to ensure residents had access to grievance/concern forms to submit grievances anonymously, should they choose not to alert a staff member to their concern.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions related to fall care plans for one Resident (#62) out of a total of 31 sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement treatment recommendations related to pressure ulcers for one Resident (#48), out of a total of 31 sampled Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement a). heel booties (a device utilized to reduce pressure on the heels) as indicated by the Nurse Practitioner and b). failed to implement the use of skin prep timely to a deep tissue injury (DTI; a skin injury caused by pressure) as indicated by the Wound Physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for two Residents (#222 and #23) out of a total sample of 24 residents, and for residents on three of four units. Specifically: 1.) For Resident #222, the facility failed to maintain his/her urinary catheter bag in a privacy bag; 2.) For Resident #23, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience; and 3.) The facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience on Station 2 unit for residents dependent on staff for eating. 4.) The facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience on Station 4 unit, when staff was observed using their cell phone during the lunch meal while assisting residents during the meal.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff developed and implemented a baseline care plan for four Residents (#103, #41, #25, and #69), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of the Resident's admissions, which included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to the Residents with Dementia which meet professional standards of quality care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents' individualized dementia care needs are met through the assessment, development, and implementation of care plans through an interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach that includes the resident, their family, and/or resident representative for five Residents (#21, #103, #41, #25, and #69), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Residents #21, #103, #41, #25, and #69, the facility failed to develop an interdisciplinary dementia care plan to ensure the Resident received appropriate treatment and services specific to his/her needs for dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to accurately document in the medical record for four Residents (#77, #57, #53, and #32) out of a total sample of 24 residents. 1.) For Resident #77 and #57, the facility documented padded side rails were in place when the Residents were in bed, when they were not. 2.) For Resident #53, the facility documented that the Resident's oxygen tubing was changed when it was not. 3.) For Resident #32, the facility documented that a palmar guard (a device for contracture management) had been applied when it was not.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#118) did not self-administer medications out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, Resident #118 was observed with pills left at bedside for self-administration after he/she was assessed to not be able to self-administer medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to investigate bruises of unknown etiology for one Resident (#4) out of a total sample of 24 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to report bruises of unknown origin to the state agency as required for one Resident (#4) out of a total of 24 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure person-centered care plans with measurable goals and individualized interventions were developed and implemented for one Resident (#103), out of 24 sampled residents. Specifically, for Resident #103, the facility failed to develop a plan of care related to activities of daily living (ADL's) and the use of psychotropic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#32), out of a total sample of 24 residents, that the interdisciplinary team reviewed and revised the plan of care after the quarterly review assessment. Specifically, for Resident #32, the facility failed to review and resolve a care plan for a stage 3 left heel pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an intervention for contracture management was implemented in accordance with the medical plan of care for one Resident (#32), out of a total of 24 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement physician ordered interventions to prevent accidents for two Residents (#77 and #57) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #77 and Resident #57, the facility failed to ensure padded side rails were in place when the residents were in bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutrition status for one Resident (#25) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent significant weight loss in a timely manner for Resident #25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide respiratory care services in accordance with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#223 and #53) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically: 1.) For Resident #223 and Resident #53, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen filters were clean and that there was a process was in place for the cleaning/maintenance of the concentrators; and 2.) For Resident #53, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen tubing changed as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow infection control standards of practice for the cleaning of shared resident equipment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident Protected Health Information (PHI) was secure on 3 of 4 units. Specifically, nurses on Station 1, Station 2 and Station 3 failed to ensure PHI on the medication administration computers was not visible and accessible on the nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure hairnets were worn in the food preparation area, food was labeled, and staff food was not stored with resident food and ingredients.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#46), who was deemed incapable of self-administering medication, did not self-administer torsemide (a diuretic medication), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, titled Section 7.1, Medication Administration, dated 2007, indicated, but is not limited to, the following: -Medications are administered within 60 minutes of scheduled time, except before or after meal orders, which are administered based on mealtimes. Unless otherwise specified by the prescriber, routine medications are administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the nursing care center. Medications should not be given at mealtimes or in the dinning room unless specifically ordered with meal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with meals as needed for two Residents (#84 & #40) out of a total of 25 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to implement a physician's order for the use of an air mattress for one Resident (#88) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide the air pump to the air mattress resulting in no air entering the mattress.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed for Trauma-Informed Care for one Resident (#108), who was admitted with the diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), out of a total 25 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to 1. properly label medication in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in one of four medication carts observed, and 2. failed to ensure medications were stored in locked compartments with access limited to only authorized users, in two of the four facility stations observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review and interviews the facility failed to ensure infection control standards of practice for the prevention of infections were implemented. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing and housekeeping staff performed hand hygiene appropriately on Station 1, which had multiple residents with Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and are on isolation precautions.
20 fire safety citations on file: 3 on December 31, 2025, 13 on December 5, 2024, 4 on December 29, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.37 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.03 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.52 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 4.51 on weekdays and 4.03 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.37 in April to June 2025 to 4.37 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 | 4.37 | 0.61 | 4.51 | 4.03 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 125 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.24 | 0.63 | 4.38 | 3.89 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 129 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.37 | 0.70 | 4.55 | 3.93 | 0.7% | 0 of 91 | 124 |
| 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 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 33.6 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.2 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.1 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Belmont Manor Nursing Home, in's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.9% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 319 eligible stays.
14.9% this home
Worse than 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. 366 eligible stays.
7.6% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 238 eligible stays.
41.5% this home
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. 183 residents counted.
0.8% this home
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. 234 residents counted.
1.4% this home
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. 233 residents counted.
91.7% this home
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. 72 residents counted.
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: BELMONT MANOR NURSING HOME INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karger, Stewart | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 75% | 06/05/1979 |
| Karger, Susan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 01/01/1976 |
| Karger, Stewart | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/05/1979 | |
| Karger, Susan | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/1976 | |
| Rullo, Patricia | Corporate director | Individual | 11/15/2002 | |
| Karger, Stewart | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/05/1979 |
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.