Home / Massachusetts / Gardner
59 Eastwood Circle, Gardner, MA 01440 · Worcester County · (978) 632-8776
124 certified beds, about 109 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1970
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225196 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 2, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 32 health citations since August 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 4.06 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.61 of those hours.
51.2% 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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of practice in delivery of care and services were being met for seven Resident's (#3, #5, #32, #15, #113, #108, and #2) out of a total sample size of 24 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #3, the facility failed to ensure that a Physician's order for CBC (Complete Blood Count) and BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) laboratory testing was obtained as ordered, placing Resident #3 at risk for worsening medical conditions. 2. For Resident #5, the facility failed to administer Insulin medication (Lispro) as prescribed by the Physician for 24 doses over a 19-day period and notify the Resident's Physician that the Resident's Lispro had not been administered as prescribed, placing Resident #5 at risk for variable blood sugar levels. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to store all medications in a safe and secure manner in one central supply room (South Two Unit), out of two central supply rooms in the facility, and one Nursing Unit (East One). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the central supply room on the South Two Unit was locked on 1/28/26, allowing residents, visitors, and unauthorized staff ready access to over-the-counter medications. 2.the facility failed to ensure that two plastic bags containing muscle relaxant, diuretic, and psychotropic medications were appropriately stored on the East One Unit, placing unauthorized staff, visitors and facility residents at risk for accessing the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to complete an assessment for medication self-administration for one Resident (#4), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #4, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident was assessed for his/her ability to safely and appropriately self-administer medications when unlabeled tablets in a medication cup were observed left at his/her bedside to be self-administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately execute Advance Directives (legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you are unable to communicate your own wishes) for one Resident (#13) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the MOLST (Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment) Form on record was valid and reflected the signature of Resident #13's invoked (made active by a Physician) Health Care Proxy (HCP- the person chosen as the healthcare decision maker when the individual is unable to do so for themself) after the Physician had determined that the Resident lacked the capacity for informed medical decision making.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to resolve a grievance timely for two Residents (#13 and #121) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:1. for Resident #13, that a report of missing reading glasses was identified as a grievance and was resolved within a reasonable time frame.2. for Resident #121, that the Resident Representative (RR #1) was provided with the conclusion and corrective action to a documented grievance as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to identify hazardous hot water temperatures in four shower rooms (East One, East Two, South One, and South Two) out of a total of five shower rooms in the facility, and for two Resident's (#20 and #22) with hot water concerns, increasing the risk for accidental burns to residents and staff in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to identify hazardous hot water temperatures and implement interventions: -in one of the East One Unit's shower rooms when the shower room's shower head with built-in temperature gauge indicated a hot water temperature of 140 degrees ( ) Fahrenheit (F). -in the East Two Unit's shower room when the shower had a manual hot water temperature of 126 F. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to provide respiratory care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#52) out a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #52, the facility failed to ensure:-oxygen tubing and nebulizer equipment changes were completed timely as required.-that the Resident's oxygen and nebulizer equipment and BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) mask were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and appropriately stored when not in use to prevent contamination and the spread of infections. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration, dated 4/9/25 included but was not limited to: >Change oxygen tubing and mask/cannula weekly and as needed if it becomes soiled or contaminated. >Keep delivery devices covered in plastic bag when not in use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff for three Resident's (#121, #108, and #109) on two Units (East Two and South Two) out of four total resident units, to maintain the safety and well-being of the resident population. Specifically, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff: 1.for two shifts on the East Two Unit over two consecutive days (1/27/26 and 1/28/26): a. when no staff were in attendance in the Unit Dining Room on the 1/27/26 evening (3:00 P.M. through 11:00 P.M.) shift and a resident seated next to Resident #121 placed fish sticks and tater tots, which were not pureed, in front of Resident #121 who required a pureed diet, increasing the risk of Resident #121 eating the non-pureed food items and choking with no staff present to intervene. b. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to coordinate an assessment with the PASARR program (screen to determine if a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability (ID or DD) and/or serious mental illness (SMI) and needed further evaluation) for two Residents (#7 and #11), of two applicable residents reviewed for PASARR, out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. For Resident #7, refer to the PASARR Office for a Level II Resident Review in a timely manner when the Resident: -Experienced suicidal remarks and an attempt to self-harm. -Required immediate transfer to the hospital for medical and psychiatric evaluation.2. For Resident #11, refer the Resident to the PASARR Office for Resident Review after the Resident experienced a significant change in status requiring psychiatric hospitalization. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) documentation related to positioning was either incomplete and/or inaccurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an environment that is free of accidents and hazards for two Resident (#103 and #45) out of a total sample of 23 Residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #103, ensure potentially hazardous smoking materials were stored in a secure area, putting the facility Residents at risk for injury due to inappropriate usage when the Resident was smoking in his/her room. 2. For Resident #45, ensure that an elopement assessment was completed timely and safety interventions were implemented when the Resident demonstrated exit seeking behaviors, resulting in the Resident eloping from the secure (locked) unit via a door that was malfunctioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to adhere to safe food practices to prevent contamination of food and beverage items intended for resident consumption in the facility's main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to implement safe food practices in the main kitchen relative to: -labeling/dating, storage guidelines. -use of hair restraints in order to reduce the risk of cross contamination/spoilage of food items. -maintaining the facility kitchen in a clean, sanitary, and free of dust and debris manner.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revised August 2024, indicated the following: - Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. -High-contact resident care activities include (in part): a. dressing b. bathing c. transferring d. providing hygiene g. Device care or in use: urinary catheters h. Wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing -Enhanced Barrier Precautions should be used for the duration of the affected resident's stay in the facility or until resolution of the wound or discontinuation of the indwelling medical device that placed them at higher risk. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide a dignified experience for one Resident (#19) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #19, the facility failed to provide incontinence care after the Resident was incontinent of bowel and prior to engaging in a group activity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to notify a Resident Representative of a change in condition, for one Resident (#5) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify Resident #5's Representative when the Resident developed a skin rash which required an outpatient appointment to a Dermatologist and medication to treat the condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a Preadmission and Resident Review Level I (initial PASRR - initial pre-screening completed prior to admission to a Nursing Facility that assess for Serious Mental Illness[SMI] or Developmental Disabilities[DD]) screen was completed prior to admission to the facility for one Resident #72) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that a Level I screen was completed prior to admission to the facility when Resident #72 had active diagnoses of mental disorders.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of care were maintained for diabetic management for one Resident (#8) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #8, the facility failed to ensure that Physician's orders were implemented and Physician notification occurred when the Resident experienced periods of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#35 and #23) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #35, ensure that Physician's orders were in place to address the liter flow (LPM-flow rate of Oxygen that is received from an oxygen delivery device) of Oxygen and appropriate maintenance and storage were in place for the Resident's nebulizer (machine that administers medication via a mist that is inhaled) device. 2. For Resident #23, notify the Provider timely for updated orders/interventions when there was a change in the Resident's condition and Oxygen was no longer being administered continuously per Physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a recommendation made by the Behavioral Health Care Team was implemented for one Resident (#104) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #104, the facility failed to ensure that a recommendation made by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner to increase the Resident's antianxiety medication after he/she experienced an increase in Anxiety (feeling of unease, such as worry or fear, that can be mild or severe/ intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations) was reviewed by the Physician and implemented or alternate treatments were put into place.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that recommendations made by the Consultant Pharmacist during a monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) were acted upon as required for one Resident (#59), of five applicable residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to act upon the Consultant Pharmacist recommendations dated 8/21/24 and 9/18/24, to include an evaluation and/or stop date for a PRN (as needed) psychotropic (medication that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings or behavior) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic (medication that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings or behavior) medications were only used when necessary and PRN use is limited for one Resident (#59), of five applicable residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #59, the facility failed to ensure that PRN Lorazepam (Ativan: antianxiety medication) was limited to 14 days, unless otherwise documented by the Attending Physician or Prescribing Practitioner that it was appropriate to extend beyond 14 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that documentation was maintained in the medical record that weekly skin checks had been completed for one Resident (#72) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #72, the facility failed to ensure that weekly skin check documentation was completed for the Resident who was at risk of skin break down, and maintained in the medical record putting the Resident at risk for having skin break down go untreated.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Arbitration Agreement was explained to one Resident's (#59) Resident Representative, out of a total sample of four arbitration agreements reviewed. Specifically, the Resident Representative for Resident #59 was not given the opportunity to have the Arbitration Agreement explained to him/her by the facility when it was determined that Resident #59 was cognitively impaired.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to offer an updated COVID-19 vaccine, in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for one Resident (#11) out of five applicable sampled residents, out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to offer an updated COVID-19 vaccine to Resident #11 when the Resident was not considered up-to-date with the COVID-19 vaccine, the updated COVID-19 vaccine was available to the facility, and the COVID-19 vaccine was not clinically contraindicated for the Resident, which increased the Resident's risk for acquiring COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 associated complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were coded accurately for two Residents (#72 and #83) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #72, ensure Tobacco use was coded accurately when Resident #72 was an active smoker. 2. For Resident #83, attempt/complete the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment to determine the level of cognition when the Resident was identified as able to understand and could be understood.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate standards for safe and sanitary food services. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that staff: 1. Maintained appropriate standards for safe and sanitary practices related to hand washing and hair restraints. 2. Monitored and documented beverage temperatures during meal service.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for one Resident (#45), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to implement medication monitoring relative to anticoagulant medication (medication taken to prevent blood from clotting) and diuretic medication (medication taken to increase the elimination of water from the body) as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with Physician's orders and the plan of care for one Resident (#51) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to perform wound care to a right lower extremity shin (front of lower leg) wound as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow appropriate professional standards related to infection control for catheter care for one Resident (#62) out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow professional standards related to the care and services of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine (machine that involves the administration of air by an external device at a predetermined level of pressure when sleeping) for one Resident (#74) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to clean and provide maintenance of the Resident's CPAP equipment per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#57) out of a total sample of 20 residents, who required renal dialysis (a lifesaving treatment that filters waste products and excess fluid when the kidneys stop working). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete communication with the dialysis facility for the Resident's dialysis appointments as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for two Residents (#22 and #87) out of a total sample of five residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #22, the facility failed to ensure that staff offered, assessed, and provided education on the recommended 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20). 2. For Resident #87, the facility failed to ensure that staff administered the requested Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23).
9 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 2, 2026, 5 on October 18, 2024, 1 on August 1, 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) | 4.06 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.37 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.30 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.16 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.2% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 72.2% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.03 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 4.34 on weekdays and 3.37 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.72 in April to June 2025 to 4.06 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 | 4.06 | 0.61 | 4.34 | 3.37 | 12.8% | 0 of 90 | 109 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.02 | 0.45 | 4.27 | 3.39 | 12.5% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.85 | 0.53 | 4.09 | 3.23 | 12.8% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.72 | 0.49 | 3.95 | 3.15 | 9.1% | 0 of 91 | 111 |
| 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 | 13.2 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.6 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.3 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Gardner Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (57.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.1% this home
Better 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. 238 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 259 eligible stays.
6.9% 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. 171 eligible stays.
63.9% 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. 166 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 247 residents counted.
4.9% 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. 247 residents counted.
98.6% 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. 73 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: GARDNER OPERATIONS LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardner Nursing Home Holding Company LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/20/2021 |
| Jacobowitz, Harry | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 14% | 12/13/2022 |
| Jacobowitz, Kalman | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12% | 12/13/2022 |
| Lipman, Eileen | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12% | 12/13/2022 |
| Lipman, Michael | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 32% | 12/13/2022 |
| Mermelstein, Elisa | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12% | 12/13/2022 |
| Mermelstein, Howard | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 11% | 12/13/2022 |
| Cambridge, Joshua | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/13/2022 | |
| Jacobowitz, Kalman | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/13/2022 | |
| Mermelstein, Howard | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/13/2022 | |
| Asghar, Irfan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/13/2022 |
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.