Home / Massachusetts / Canton
601 Sherman Street, Canton, MA 02021 · Norfolk County · (781) 828-7450
154 certified beds, about 99 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225418 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 28, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 34 health citations since June 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one Resident (#89), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #89 the facility failed to provide assistance with the removal of facial hair.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow up on a significant weight change in a timely manner and failed to implement a nutrition intervention as recommended by the Registered Dietitian (RD) for one Resident (#11), out of a total of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess a significant weight loss for over 11 weeks and implement interventions for a nutrition supplement as recommended by the RD for Resident #11.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented dialysis care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#10), out of 27 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide ongoing communication between the nursing facility and dialysis facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure food was properly labeled in two out of two refrigerators in the kitchen; and 2. Properly label, date, and store food products in two of two nourishment kitchenettes.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives were fully informed in advance and given information necessary to make health care decisions including the dose and benefits of psychotropic medications prior to their use for one Resident (#32), from a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Physician/Practitioner was notified of a change in treatment for one Resident (#17), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Physician/Practitioner was notified when the Wound Consultant recommended the initiation of an antibiotic.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for the residents at the facility, for 1 of 3 nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff developed a baseline or comprehensive care plan within 48 hours of the resident's admission, which included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for two Residents (#96 and #251), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #96, to develop and implement a baseline care plan related to falls; and 2. For Resident #251, to ensure staff provided the resident and/or their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan within 48 hours of his/her admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed for two Residents (#35 and #52), out of 27 sampled residents, the facility failed to develop and/or implement comprehensive care plans to reflect the individual needs of the resident. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #35, to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address the Resident's diagnoses of dementia with behavioral disturbance and psychotic disorder with delusions; and 2. For Resident #52, to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address trauma informed care related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#35 and #63), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #35, a. to ensure that the Resident's fingerstick blood sugar was obtained per physician's order, b. to ensure that a physician's order was in place for the care and maintenance of the Resident's catheter drainage bag, and c. to ensure that a voiding trial (a procedure in which the ability of the bladder to empty after removal of a urinary catheter is measured) on 8/23/24 was implemented per physician's order; and 2. For Resident #63, to ensure physician's orders were complete for the management of a continuous glucose monitoring sensor and included orders to remove and change the device every 14 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one Resident (#57), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to fully develop and implement interdisciplinary care plans related to his/her dominant language of Albanian and failed to ensure staff provided person-centered care and services to determine and support the Resident's communication needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of individual and group activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for one Resident (#251), out of 27 sampled residents. Specifically, for Resident #251, the facility failed to consistently provide activities based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards for two Residents (#32 and #62), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete his/her quarterly smoking evaluations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor adverse consequences (side effects) of anticoagulant medications (used to prevent the blood from clotting; a blood thinner) for one Resident (#41), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#56) drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an as needed antipsychotic medication was limited to 14 days, or extended beyond 14 days with a documented clinical rationale and duration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that concerns addressed by the Resident Council Group have sufficient follow-up to address and prevent recurrence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure four Residents (#75, #46, #31, and #21) were free from restraints, out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #75, to assess the use of a rolled-up Hoyer pad and pillows under the fitted sheet on both sides of the Resident as a potential restraint; 2. For Resident #46, to assess the use of multiple blankets under the sheets on both sides of the bed as a potential restraint; 3. For Resident #31, to assess the use of blankets under the fitted sheet on one side of the Resident as a potential restraint; and 4. For Resident #21, to assess the Resident's bed up against the wall as a potential restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance was provided to four dependent Residents (#87, #40, #54, and #12), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. Resident #87's facial hair was not removed timely; and 2. Residents #40, #54, and #12 were not supervised with eating.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to store food in sanitary conditions, specifically, label and date leftover food items and dispose of food items after their use by date.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for one Resident (#16), out of a total sample of 26 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#16 and #54) consented to the administration of an antipsychotic medication, prior to administration, out of a total sample of 26 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide meal choices and preferences for one Resident (#27), out of a total sample of 26 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for three Residents (#451, #54 and #82), out of a total of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #451, to ensure nursing implemented a physician's ordered bed alarm for a resident with a history of a fall with injury; 2. For Resident #54, to implement the orthotic/splint care plan; and 3. For Resident #82, to develop a communication care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise the plan of care related to advanced directives for one Resident (#451), out of a total sample of 26 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of care were followed related to physician's orders for two Residents (#63 and #4) out of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #63, to obtain weekly weights, per the physician's order; and 2. For Resident #4, to ensure the physician's orders were implemented for a.) a stop sign outside of his/her room, and b.) the application of compression stockings (TEDs).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure quality care was provided to one Resident (#451), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, on 6/5/23 Resident #451 fell while in the facility and sustained a subdural hematoma and laceration to his/her right forehead and was transferred to the hospital. Resident #451 returned on 6/8/23 with four sutures to his/her right forehead. On 6/27/23, 6/28/23 and 6/29/23 (24 days after the sutures were inserted) the sutures were still in Resident #451's right forehead and nursing failed to obtain a suture removal date.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that routine devices (hearing aids) used to maintain hearing were provided for one Resident (#451), out of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide and implement the use of hearing aids for Resident #451 who was hard of hearing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to follow the Weight Surveillance policy for one Resident (#87), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility did not obtain monthly weights as ordered for Resident #87 and did not reweigh Resident #87 when a 12.5% weight loss was recorded to ensure accuracy of the weight obtained.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment according to professional standards of practice for two Residents (#27 and #452), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. To label the oxygen tubing and clean the filter as ordered; and 2. To implement a physician's order for dating and initialing nebulizer tubing, and to store a nebulizer face mask to prevent possible contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and addressed for three Residents (#21, #12, and #86), out of a total sample of 26 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5 percent. Two out of four nurses observed made 3 errors in 36 opportunities on two of three units resulting in a medication error rate of 8.33%. These errors impacted two Residents (#20 and #95), out of seven residents observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#4) was free from a significant medication error, out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, Resident #4 was administered an antibiotic twice daily for 14 days instead of twice daily for 14 doses (7 days) as indicated by the hospital discharge summary and discharge prescription.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed: 1. To ensure medications were stored securely in 2 out of 4 resident care units, and 2. To ensure medications with shortened expiration dates were labeled and dated after being opened in 2 out of 3 medication carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record for one Resident (#4), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #4, the physician's ordered calcium carbonate tablet did not have a dose as required.
14 fire safety citations on file: 8 on August 28, 2025, 6 on August 30, 2024.
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) | not reported | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: This facility did not submit staffing data.
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 October to December 2025, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.11 on weekdays and 3.71 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.86 in April to June 2025 to 3.99 in October to December 2025.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.99 | 0.57 | 4.11 | 3.71 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.93 | 0.61 | 4.03 | 3.68 | 2.1% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.86 | 0.68 | 3.98 | 3.56 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 107 |
| United States, Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.76 | 0.62 | 3.93 | 3.34 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.81 | 0.62 | 3.97 | 3.42 | 5.3% | 0.5% 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.
| 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 | 25.9 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.0 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.3 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Hellenic Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.3% 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. 53 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. 80 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 42 eligible stays.
45.3% 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. 53 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 69 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. 69 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 20 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: HELLENIC WOMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC..
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mentakis, Michael | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 10/23/2023 | |
| Delince, Danielle | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Delince, Danielle | Corporate director | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Hopkins, Joanna | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Houlares, Pamela | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 |
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.