Home / Massachusetts / Fitchburg
94 Summer Street, Fitchburg, MA 01420 · Worcester County · (978) 343-3530
87 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1975
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225227 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 7, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since October 2022, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $43,719 in the last three years; the largest was $29,913, and the latest is dated February 20, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.13 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
30.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Ephram Lahasky, an affiliated group of 22 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for three Residents (44, #29, and #1) out of a total of 20 sampled residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #44, the facility failed to: a.) adequately assess, monitor, and implement a physician order for fluid restrictions (limiting the amount of fluid a person takes in) from August 2024 to March 2025. Subsequently, Resident #44 was hospitalized in February 2025, and admitted to ICU (intensive care unit) with diagnosis of acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute renal failure and septic shock., b.) failed to follow up on physician recommendations for new prosthetic leg, and c.) failed to implement a physician order for bilateral shoulder X-ray. 2. For Resident #29, the facility failed to obtain labs as ordered by the physician. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the Physician of critical labs for two residents (#12, and #44) out of a total of 20 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #12, the facility failed to alert the Physician of critically high BUN (measures how much blood urea nitrogen is in your body and can may indicated a problem with kidneys or liver) and critically low potassium (measures the electrolyte potassium in the blood that is essential for proper muscle and nerve function) results, which resulted in a delay of treatment and hospitalization for acute hypokalemia and acute kidney injury. 2. For Resident #44, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered by the Physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with professional standards of practice, for three of 20 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #18, the facility failed to develop a care plan for post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. For Resident #11, the facility failed to develop a care plan for post-traumatic stress disorder. 3. For Resident #12, the facility failed to develop a care plan for suicidal ideation. 4. For Resident #44, the facility failed to develop care plans for the presence of a cardiac pacemaker. 1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in April 2024, with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately execute an Advanced Directive for 1 Resident (#69), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, for Resident #69 the facility failed to ensure the Massachusetts Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) (An Advanced Directive that is reviewed and signed as an order by a Physician/Nurse Practitioner (NP), or Physician Assistant (PA) and confirms a Resident's decisions for life sustaining treatment), was valid and signed by the Resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition for one Resident, (#6), out of a total of 20 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in skin condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure quality of care for two Residents (#69, and #6), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #69, the facility failed to ensure for Resident #69, who is treated with anticoagulant medication (a medication that hinders clotting of the blood), that areas of discoloration consistent with bruising were identified. 2. For Resident #6, the facility failed to obtain a treatment for a change in condition related to skin management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#69) that a smoking assessment was completed and that a care plan was developed for smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to provide respiratory care for three of 20 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #18, the facility failed to implement the physician's order for oxygen use. 2. For Resident #6, the facility failed to implement the physician's order for oxygen, and did not change expired oxygen tubing. 3. For Resident #12, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for oxygen used by the Resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored as required for one Resident (#26), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that medication was not left at the Resident's bedside unattended.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure specialized rehab services were provided in a timely fashion for one Resident (#41) out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of its medical records for 3 of 20 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #18, the facility failed to accurately document the oxygen delivery rate. 2. For Resident #6, the facility failed to accurately date oxygen tubing. 3. For Resident #1, the facility failed to accurately document wound dressing treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and records reviewed, for five out of thirteen resident rooms on one unit (Unit A) and for three out of three resident shower rooms, the Facility failed to ensure it provided a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for its residents, when the condition of the resident shower rooms were found to be dirty and baseboard heaters in several resident rooms were in disrepair, with missing or damaged covers, both of which created potentially hazardous conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews and observations, for one of three sampled resident care units (Unit A), the Facility failed to ensure food provided to the residents was served at safe and appetizing temperatures, when on 02/20/25, results of test tray observations indicated the food items were not served at appetizing temperatures and some of the food items were not palatable.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and records reviewed, for the main kitchen where all food items are prepared and plated before being served to the residents, the facility failed to ensure; 1) they maintained a clean and sanitary environment in the facility's main kitchen, and 2) that kitchen (dietary) staff adhered to sanitary standards of practice during food handling when two of two cooks were observed handling food without wearing hair restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) who were assessed by nursing to be at risk for elopement, the Facility failed to ensure 1) nursing updated Resident #1's comprehensive plan of care with new interventions following an elopement on 07/07/24, and 2) nursing developed and implemented an individualized comprehensive care plan with interventions, treatment goals and outcomes that addressed Resident #2's risk for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing to be at high risk for elopement, and was moderately cognitively impaired, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided an adequate level of staff supervision to prevent two incidents of elopement, when on 07/07/24, Resident #1 was found out in the parking lot adjacent to the facility (unescorted by a staff member) and, on 09/21/24, Resident #1 was able to exit the facility unbeknownst to staff, was found by staff a couple of blocks away from the facility with bruises on his/her face and abrasions on his/her bilateral knees and palms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to notify the Physician/Non-Physician Practitioner (NPP: Nurse Practitioner) of a significant change in medical condition and an elopement for two Residents (#60 and #62) out of a total sample of three closed records reviewed. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #60, identify a serious change in condition and acute decline in mental status, and notify the Physician/ NPP timely, resulting in the Resident further decompensating and being transferred to the hospital. 2. For Resident #62, notify the Physician/ NPP when the Resident with compromised medical status, and no access to prescribed medications eloped (left) the facility without a Leave of Absence (LOA) order and did not return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment, services and care that met professional standards of quality for one Resident (#60) out of a total sample of three discharged residents, resulting in a decline in medical status and hospitalization with sepsis (a life-threatening medical emergency that occurs when an infection triggers the body's immune system to damage its own organs and tissues). Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. Recognize, assess, and manage pulmonary symptoms that indicated a significant change in condition for Resident #60 who had multiple pulmonary diagnoses that required immediate and appropriate interventions for symptom management. 2. Provide needed care and services for a nephrostomy tube and manage symptoms of a change in nephrostomy tube output as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to treat pressure ulcers (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device) and prevent further skin and pressure injury for two Residents (#22 and #4), out of two applicable residents, out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. Offload Resident #22's heels per the Physician's Order for treatment of an existing right heel ulcer, and prevent skin decline in his/her left heel. 2. Implement a turning and repositioning schedule and apply specialized boots and/or pillows to offload Resident #4's heels per the plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's Licensed Nurse staff schedule, Daily Census list provided to the survey team, and interview, the facility failed to provide the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. Provide at least eight consecutive hours of RN services in the facility over one 24-hour period on 12/23/23, when no nurse staffing waivers were in place. 2. appropriately schedule the services of a RN when the facility scheduled the Director of Nurses (DON) as a charge nurse, providing direct resident care and the average facility resident occupancy was above 60 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately and safely ensure that routine and emergency medications and pharmaceutical services were provided to meet the needs of each resident. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that: 1. Three open medication Emergency Box Kits on one unit (A) were re-ordered as required. 2. Expired medications were removed from the medication cart on one unit (A-short) out of two units observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and document review, the facility failed to provide competent nursing staff to care for one Resident (#60), out of one applicable resident, out of a total sample of 17 residents, who required Nephrostomy (temporary tube used to drain urine directly from the kidneys to a bag outside of the body) site care resulting in the Resident being hospitalized with multiple infections. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -Ensure that all licensed Nursing staff caring for Resident #60 had the competency and skills required to provide care and services for a Nephrostomy tube, when nine out of 15 facility Licensed Nurses who cared for the Resident were provided with training on Nephrostomy site care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide palatable food that was within appropriate temperatures for service on one unit (A-wing) out of two units observed and relative to four Resident's (#24, #27, #47, and #52) and members of a Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -for Resident's #47, #24, #27, and #52, provide food that was palatable and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. -for members of a Resident Council Meeting held during the recertification survey, provide food that was palatable, appetizing and served at a proper temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that an accurate and current copy of an Advanced Directive (legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you are unable to communicate your own wishes) was maintained in the medical record for one Resident (#9), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -maintain accurate documentation of a Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form indicating the Resident's decision for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR- an emergency lifesaving procedure performed when the heart stops beating) and Intubate (inserting a tube into the trachea to assist with breathing and ventilation) and Ventilate. -maintain accurate Physician's orders corresponding to the MOLST form relative to intubation status. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide protections for the health and welfare for residents residing in the facility relative to two Residents (#32 and #48) out of a total sample of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to implement an investigation and report a resident-to-resident altercation when Residents #32 and #48 were witnessed arguing with each other and Resident #48 threatened to kill Resident #32.
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to identify, investigate and report an alleged violation within the prescribed timeframe for two Residents (#32 and #48) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to identify a resident-to-resident altercation involving Resident #32 and Resident #48, as an alleged abuse violation, and investigate and report to the appropriate entities no later than 24 hours after the altercation occurred in accordance with state law.
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, and interview, the facility staff failed to investigate an alleged violation of verbal abuse for two Residents (#32 and #48) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, -For Resident #32, the alleged victim, the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate an altercation with Resident #48 that included verbal abuse and death threats, and immediately assess and evaluate Resident #32 for safety needs, increased supervision and medical treatment. -For Resident #48, the alleged perpetrator, the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate an altercation with Resident #32 that included verbal abuse and death threats, to prevent any further potential abuse to the victim and/or other residents and implement corrective action following the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate an assessment with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review program (PASRR- is a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care. PASRR requires that: 1) all applicants to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility be evaluated for a serious mental disorder and/or intellectual disability; 2) be offered the most appropriate setting for their needs [in the community, a nursing facility, or acute care setting], and 3) receive the services they need in those settings) for one Resident (#1) out of a total sample of 17 residents. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care was revised for one Resident (#18), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to revise Resident #18's Nutritional Care Plan to reflect current nutritional interventions of pureed diet with nectar thick liquids and nutritional supplement provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#9) out of a total sample of 17 residents, with limited range of motion (ROM) received appropriate care and services to maintain and/or improve their mobility function. Specifically, the facility staff failed to have PT (Physical Therapy)/OT (Occupational Therapy) re-evaluate and implement Resident #9's therapy services following an Orthopedic Consult and recommendations, to prevent further avoidable reduction in ROM and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment that was free of potential accidents and hazards for one Resident (#62), out of a total sample of three closed records reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #62, the facility failed to: -assess the Resident for an independent authorized leave of absence (LOA) from the facility when he/she did not have a Physician's order for LOA and a known cognitive deficit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide acceptable nutritional care and services for one Resident (#18), out of a total of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #18 was provided the appropriate consistency of food and liquids as ordered by the Physician, and supervision/assistance per the plan of care, resulting in severe weight loss (greater than 7.5% in three months) for the Resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide dental services for two Residents (#1 and #18) out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. Obtain consent and refer Resident #1 for dental services. 2. Implement dental recommendations for extractions as recommended by the Dentist for Resident #18.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#18) out of a total sample of 17 residents, received the appropriate consistency of mechanically altered food and liquids. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure Resident #18 was provided the appropriate consistency of pureed food and nectar thick liquids (easily pourable and are comparable to heavy syrup found in canned fruit) when he/she had a Physician's order for the specialized diet, had poor dentition and had a history of chewing/swallowing problems putting him/her at risk for choking and aspiration (food/fluids that are inhaled into the lungs and can cause infection).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that transmission-based precautions (TBP- implemented for patients who are known or suspected to be infected with infectious agents) were implemented in order to prevent the potential spread of infection for one Resident #22, of one applicable resident on TBP precautions, out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the required personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn prior to entering Resident #22's room when he/she was on Contact Precautions (prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment) for a Clostridium difficile colitis (C-Diff: inflammation of the colon caused by bacteria causing fever, abdominal pain and diarrhea) infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff obtained written consent, including education on the risks and benefits of proposed care related to the use of an anti-psychotic medication, from a Resident Representative, for one Resident (#20), out of a total sample to 12 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff provided a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge to the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative, for one Resident (#18), out of a total sample of 12 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the bed hold notice at the time of a hospital transfer, for two Residents (#41 and #18), out of 12 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded a facility acquired pressure ulcer on a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one Resident (#41) out of 12 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided appropriate care and services for an indwelling urinary catheter for two Residents (#16 and #18) out of four applicable sampled residents. Specifically, (1.) for Resident #16 the staff failed to (a.) ensure the catheter was changed as ordered and (b.) failed to address the Resident's non-compliance with catheter care. (2.) For Resident #18 the staff failed to obtain a Physician's order prior to changing the catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of timesheets, the facility failed to ensure that the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) were used for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week from 9/4/22 through 10/1/22, specifically Sunday, 9/18/22.
18 fire safety citations on file: 9 on March 7, 2025, 3 on March 26, 2024, 6 on October 7, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 20, 2025 | Fine | $13,806 |
| March 26, 2024 | Fine | $29,913 |
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) | 3.13 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.88 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.84 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.80 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 30.8% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.62 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 3.24 on weekdays and 2.88 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.98 in April to June 2025 to 3.13 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 | 3.13 | 0.49 | 3.24 | 2.88 | 0.3% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.10 | 0.52 | 3.20 | 2.86 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.08 | 0.47 | 3.19 | 2.78 | 1.6% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.98 | 0.47 | 3.09 | 2.71 | 0.9% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| 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 | 6.7 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.8 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.5 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.0 | 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 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Fitchburg Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (40.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
40.6% 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. 44 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 57 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 33 eligible stays.
39.1% 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. 23 residents counted.
2.8% 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. 36 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 36 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. 11 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: FITCHBURG REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Ephram Lahasky, a group of 22 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horowitz, Akiva | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/14/2019 | |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/14/2019 | |
| Johnson, Philip | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Horowitz, Akiva | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/14/2019 | |
| Johnson, Philip | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/14/2019 | |
| Johnson, Philip | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2025 | |
| Majekodunmi, Akindele | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/08/2025 |
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.