Home / Massachusetts / Abington
277 Washington Street, Abington, MA 02351 · Plymouth County · (781) 871-0200
92 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225435 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 7, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since December 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $65,923 in the last three years; the largest was $40,330, and the latest is dated June 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.52 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.57 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Azure Healthcare, an affiliated group of 6 nursing homes.
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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1), who was readmitted to the Facility after a hospitalization and who required follow up appointments one week post discharge with Cardiology and Gastrointestinal providers, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided services that met professional standards of practice when arraignments for the follow-up appointments were not made or scheduled by nursing. Findings Include:Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in October 2025, diagnoses included gastrointestinal hemorrhage, anemia, atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), hypertension, anoxic brain damage, and seizure disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Health Care Agent (HCA, Family Member #1) was very involved in his/her care, the Facility failed to ensure staff promptly notified Family Member #1 of a change in Resident #1's status, when on 04/25/25, he/she fell while working with Occupational Therapy (OT).
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure that upon admission, that nursing developed and implemented baseline care plans with interventions, treatments, goals, and outcomes that addressed the residents' overall immediate care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident # 1), who upon admission required a therapeutic diet in relation to diabetes mellitus, the Facility failed to ensure nursing developed and implemented a comprehensive person-centered care plan with interventions, treatment goals, and outcomes that addressed his/her person-centered nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had been assessed as requiring nutritional interventions for wound care, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided care and services that met professional standards of quality, when recommendations made by the Registered Dietician (RD) for Resident #1, were not followed up on timely by nursing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observations, the facility failed to ensure grievance forms were available in resident care and public areas so residents and/or visitors were able to access forms without requesting staff assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for skin breakdown with a wound received necessary treatment and services to promote healing for one Resident (#59), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete weekly skin checks, to investigate wounds caused by injury/trauma, and to follow wound physician's recommendations and accurately implement care and treatment of a non-pressure wound to the Resident's left knee, heel, and shin.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent new ulcers from developing and to promote healing for two Residents (#2 and #59), out of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #2, to perform weekly skin assessments and/or monitor his/her skin until he/she developed an unstageable pressure ulcer on the left heel, and an unstageable pressure area on the left calf. The calf pressure wound required debridement and was eventually assessed as a stage 3 pressure area (full thickness tissue loss; subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon, or muscle are not exposed); and 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record was maintained for nine Residents (#59, #67 #18, #24, #27, #31, #64, #68, #77 and #2 ), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #59, Urology consultation progress notes/office visit notes were part of the medical record; 2. For Residents #18, # 24, #27, #31, #64, #68, and #77, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) was accurate, documenting on 3/4/25 and 3/5/25, the residents received their nutritional supplements when they remained in the refrigerators on their respective units; and 3. For Resident #2, the MAR was accurate, documenting the Resident was being administered off-loading booties when they were not available to the Resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and records reviewed, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 10 Residents (#65, #31, #3, #9, #26, #28, #40, #72, #17, and #21). Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Residents #65, #31, #3, #9, #26, and #28, to initiate Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) specifically Droplet Precautions, as indicated for suspected influenza while diagnostic testing was pending; 2. For Residents #40 and #72, to ensure staff implemented appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to entering rooms of Residents on TBP (Droplet Precautions); 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for bruises of unknown origin for two Residents (#2 and #12), in a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #2, to ensure a large bruise of unknown origin on the right side of the Resident's head was fully investigated to prevent potential further injury; and 2. Resident #12, to ensure bruises to the left elbow and wrist were fully investigated to prevent potential further injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report bruises of unknown origin to the Department of Public Health's (DPH) Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS-a web-based system that health care facilities must use to report incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation) as required for two Residents (#2 and #12), in a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to report bruises of unknown origin within the required timeframe to the State Survey Agency for: 1. Resident #2's large bruise to the right side of the head; and 2. Resident #12's bruises to the left elbow and hand.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to fully investigate bruises of unknown origin for two Residents (#2 and #12), in a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate: 1. Resident #2's large bruise to the right side of the head; and 2. Resident #12's bruises to the left elbow.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide treatment and services related to an indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine outside the body), for one Resident (#26), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders were followed and the correct size indwelling catheter balloon was implemented for Resident #26.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered plan of care which included trauma informed approaches and identified triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization for two Residents (#61, #29) with a history of trauma, out of a total sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) of an anticoagulant agent (blood thinner) prescribed for one Resident (#12), out of a total sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Transfer/Discharge was issued to one Resident (#69), out of a total sample of 18 residents and one discharged Resident (#80), out of a total sample of three discharged residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Bed Hold Policy Notice was issued upon transfer to the hospital for one Resident (#69), out of a sample of 18 residents, and one discharged Resident (#80), out of a total sample of three discharged residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was cognitively intact, and on 6/23/24 during the overnight shift had been heard calling out for help and was found on the floor by two Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) after an unwitnessed fall, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with nursing care and treatment that met professional standards of practice, when although Nurse #1 went to Resident #1's room with the two CNA's to check him/her, after a brief assessment Nurse #1 assisted the CNA's with lifting him/her off the floor and putting him/her back in to bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate pain management for one Resident (#53), out of a total sample of 20 residents, when the facility was unable to reach the Resident's primary care physician for new pain management orders based on Hospice recommendations, resulting in the Resident suffering very severe pain of 7/8 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst pain for more than 24 hours after the Hospice recommendation was made.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that addressed the full range of care and services, was comprehensive and data-driven, and focused on indicators of outcomes of quality of life, quality of care, and services to residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, interview, and staff education record review, for 7 out of 8 direct care employees reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on effective communication was included as mandatory training for direct care staff per facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program, interview, and staff education record review, for seven out of eight direct care employees reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program was included as part of the mandatory training for all staff per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, interview, and staff education record review, for eight out of eight employee records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on compliance and ethics was included as part of the mandatory training for all staff per facility assessesment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed for four Residents (#27, #72, #28, and #41), of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #27, a care plan was developed to address the Resident's history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD, occurs in some individuals who have encountered a shocking, scary, or dangerous situation. Symptoms usually begin early, within three months of the traumatic incident, but sometimes they begin years afterward); 2. For Resident #72, his/her fall care plan was updated after a fall and was inclusive of new interventions; 3. For Resident #28, a care plan was developed to address the Resident's recent history of suicidal ideation; and 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one Resident (#22), of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure the Resident was seen by the physician at least every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter, with alternate visits by a nurse practitioner as indicated.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure for four Residents (#11, #28, #71, and #72), out of a total sample of 18 residents, that each Resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #11, the use of antipsychotic medication was managed and monitored for movement disorders to promote the Resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being; 2. For Resident #28, that psychotropic medication ordered as needed (PRN) was limited to 14 days and was reviewed by the Physician with a documented rationale for its continued use; 3. For Resident #71, that psychotropic medication ordered as needed (PRN) was limited to 14 days and was reviewed by the Physician with a documented rationale for its continued use; and 4. For Resident #72, a. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Arbitration Agreement presented to residents as part of the admission packet included the required information for one Resident (#46), out of a sample of one record reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident had a full thirty days to rescind the Arbitration Agreement after signing it as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and documentation review, the facility failed to implement an effective pest control program, as evidenced by sanitation concerns, mice sightings, and mice droppings on one (West unit) of two units.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, employee education record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement and maintain and effective training program per the facility assessment for all new and existing staff. Specifically, the facility failed to provide the required training necessary to meet the needs of each resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, interview, and staff education record review, for four employees (Nurse #4, Nurse #6, Nurse #7, and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4), out of eight employees reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on resident rights was included as mandatory training for all staff per facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, interview, and staff education record review, for three employees (Nurse #4, Nurse #6, and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4) out of eight employees reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on abuse, neglect, and exploitation was included as mandatory training for all staff per facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Facility Assessment, interview, and staff education record review, for six out of eight direct care employees reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that the training on behavioral health was included as part of the mandatory training for all staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, records reviewed, and review of the facility policies for two Residents (#22 and #41), of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically the facility failed: 1. For Resident #22, to communicate to the physician and timely implement recommendations made by a consulting hospice nurse; and 2. For Resident #41, to follow their policy and fully investigate a fall to analyze the vulnerabilities and consider interventions to mitigate the risk of future falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper care and treatment of a midline catheter (long, thin, flexible tube that is inserted into a large vein in the upper arm to administer medication into the bloodstream) device in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#56), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to flush the midline to prevent blockages and change the midline dressing per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and policy review, for one Resident (#27) with a history of trauma, of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure he/she received culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to assess the Resident and identify triggers of trauma to prevent potential re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for two Residents (#75 and #279), of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to provide specialized rehabilitative services, specifically speech-language pathology services, as required in the resident's comprehensive plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for one Resident (#28), out of a total sample of 13 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff accurately and completely documented the presence of signs and symptoms of infection of the Resident's port-a-cath (device that is usually placed under the skin in the right side of the chest. It is attached to a catheter (a thin, flexible tube that is threaded into a large vein above the right side of the heart called the superior vena cava) to deliver medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS-State agency reporting system), the facility failed to provide written notice to the State agency when a change in the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) occurred.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and the Beneficiary Protection Notification Review, the facility failed to issue a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) for two Residents (#180 and #181), out of three resident records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #180, to issue the NOMNC and the SNF ABN notice; and 2. For Resident #181, to issue the NOMNC notice.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure written notice for transfer and discharge was provided to Residents and/or Resident Representatives prior to hospital transfers for two Residents (#56 and #72), out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification of the bed hold policy to one Resident (#56) prior to transfer to the hospital, out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and records reviewed, for two Residents (#43 and #17), of six residents reviewed, the facility failed to conduct annual comprehensive assessments through completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and records reviewed, for five Residents (#69, #40, #23, #8, and #53), of six residents reviewed, the facility failed to conduct quarterly assessments through completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately completed to reflect the status for two Residents (#28 and #76), in a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #28, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status; and 2. For Resident #76, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her discharge status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of the Arbitration Agreement, the facility failed to ensure their arbitration agreement specifically provides for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, documentation review, policy review, and interview, the facility 1. Failed to implement transmission-based precautions (TBP) for a newly admitted Resident (#268) and educate the Resident's family on TBP, per the facility's policy, to help prevent the potential spread of infection throughout the facility; and 2. Failed to have an ongoing infection control and surveillance program that included consistent tracking, identifying, and monitoring of all potential or actual infections within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician and the Healthcare Proxy (HCP) when a resident returned to the facility with a new trauma pressure injury for one Resident (#35), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that professional standards for medication administration via a gastrostomy tube (GT) were met for one Resident (#9), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff 1. Checked the GT for placement per the facility's policy; and 2. Flushed the GT with the proper amount of water, per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to follow their policy by not immediately documenting the condition of a new trauma pressure injury the resident received while out of the facility at a medical appointment. In addition, they failed to notify and obtain treatment orders from the physician to start providing immediate care to the trauma pressure injury for one Resident (#35), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards were followed for residents receiving dialysis services, through ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility for two Residents (#55 and #38), out of two total residents receiving dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed for one Resident (#66), out of a total sample of 17 residents, to have documented evidence of a clinical rationale for the as needed extended use of a psychotropic medication.
6 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 7, 2025, 2 on January 18, 2024, 3 on December 7, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 1, 2026 | Fine | $40,330 |
| July 15, 2024 | Fine | $9,561 |
| January 18, 2024 | Fine | $16,032 |
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) | 3.52 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.57 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.14 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.89 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.06 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 69.2% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.07 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 3.67 on weekdays and 3.14 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 14.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.46 in April to June 2025 to 3.52 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 | 3.52 | 0.57 | 3.67 | 3.14 | 14.1% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.56 | 3.51 | 3.07 | 14.9% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.47 | 3.38 | 3.12 | 7.9% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.46 | 0.51 | 3.60 | 3.10 | 11.5% | 0 of 91 | 73 |
| 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 | 25.7 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 38.0 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 29.8 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.9 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Colony Center for Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (37.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
37.6% this home
Worse than 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. 116 eligible stays.
11.6% 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. 117 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 86 eligible stays.
49.0% 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. 51 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 94 residents counted.
7.7% 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. 94 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: 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. 13 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: ADVINIACARE ABINGTON LLC. CMS links this home to Azure Healthcare, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amnh LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/18/2024 | |
| Oc Colony Center LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/29/2023 | |
| Broyde, Chaim | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/29/2023 | |
| Friedman, Samuel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/18/2024 | |
| Lieberman, Azriel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/29/2023 | |
| Mandel, Abraham | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/18/2024 | |
| Schwarcz, Eli | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/18/2024 | |
| Jeffery, Stephen | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| Lieberman, Azriel | Corporate director | Individual | 12/29/2023 | |
| Broyde, Chaim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2023 | |
| Lieberman, Azriel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2023 |
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.