Home / Massachusetts / Danvers
90 Lindall Street, Danvers, MA 01923 · Essex County · (978) 621-9757
120 certified beds, about 109 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225740 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 12, 2026, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 21 health citations since February 2024, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,517 in the last three years; the largest was $10,517, and the latest is dated April 16, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.82 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.77 of those hours.
41.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Integritus Healthcare, an affiliated group of 14 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 21 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice were implemented for one Resident (#35) out of a total of 29 sampled Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to obtain an initial treatment order for an open skin area and failed to ensure Resident #35 was seen timely by the wound physician. Subsequently, Resident #35 had an open area for approximately 12 days before being seen by the wound physician and having an ordered treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement a recommendation by the optometrist for one Resident (#26) out of a total sample of 29 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement treatment orders as recommended by the Wound Physician for one Resident (#85) out of a total of 29 sampled Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement betadine treatment to a right heel deep tissue injury (DTI; a wound that occurs related to pressure) for approximately 43 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff stored drugs and biologicals in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications were dated once opened, according to manufacturer's guidelines, in six of six medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Advance Directives (written documents that instruct health care providers of the decisions for specific medical treatment if a person was unable to speak or lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves) were consistently documented in the medical record for one Resident (#60) out of a total sample of 24 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive resident centered care plan was developed and/or implemented for two Residents (#48 and #95) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #48, the facility failed to develop an individualized comprehensive resident centered care plan related to the monitoring and care of a pacemaker. 2. For Resident #95, the facility failed to implement the Resident's care plan for elevating his/her feet while in bed and for the use of Darco shoes when ambulating.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with the appropriate treatment and services to maintain activities of daily living for one Resident (#40) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40's recommendations for a functional maintenance program from physical therapy were maintained resulting in the Resident only using his/her wheelchair for mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain professional standards in the management and care for urinary catheter devices for one Resident (#95) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that an indwelling catheter bag (a tube that enters the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag) was at the proper location below the Resident's bladder to allow urine to be drained into the bag for Resident #95.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of falls, was assessed by nursing as being at risk for falls and whose comprehensive plan of care included an intervention of a fall mat on the floor beside his/her bed when in bed, the Facility failed to ensure staff consistently implemented and followed the plan of care, when on 10/21/24, Resident #1 was found on the floor after a fall out of bed, and there was no fall mat in place beside his/her bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose comprehensive plan of care indicated he/she was at risk for falls due to impulsivity and decreased strength, required assistance from two staff members for toileting and transfers, with a staff member remaining outside the bathroom door while he/she was on the toilet, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed interventions identified in his/her care plan, when on 02/26/24, Resident #1 told the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) that he/she had to use the bathroom, The DOR left him/her in his/her room to take him/herself to the bathroom, and did not tell any other staff that he/she was going to use the bathroom. Resident #1 transferred him/herself into the bathroom and as a result, fell. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was known to be impulsive, required two staff member assistance for toilet transfers, with one staff member remaining outside the bathroom door while he/she was on the toilet to provide standby assistance, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff assistance to maintain his/her safety, when on 02/26/24, Resident #1 told the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) that he/she had to use the bathroom, the DOR left him/her in his/her room to take him/herself to the bathroom, and did not inform any other staff that he/she was going to use the bathroom. Resident #1 attempted to transfer him/herself in the bathroom, fell, sustained a skin tear to his/her left arm, and the next day he/she complained of left elbow pain and was diagnosed with a fractured elbow.
Inspectors wroteBased on staffing level reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that sufficient staffing levels, as defined by the facility assessment, were maintained to meet each resident's personal and cognitive care needs safely and adequately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure they provided a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment. Specifically: - For one of three resident units (second floor unit), the facility failed to ensure the varnish on bedroom doors was in good, home-like condition - For Resident #113, the facility failed to ensure it emptied a filled urine hat (used for urine sample collection, or to collect and/or measure urine output) observed on his/her dresser for three days.
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 five Residents (#113, #70, #10, #60 and #22 ), in a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #113, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status; and 2. For Resident #70, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status. 3. For Resident #10, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status. 4. For Resident #60, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status. 5. For Resident #22, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected his/her cognitive status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement physician's orders and care plans for 5 Residents (#10, #36, #46, #60 and #53) out of a sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #10, the facility failed to implement a wheelchair wanderguard per the physician's order. 2. For Resident #36, the facility failed to implement a smoking care plan. 3. For Resident #46, the facility failed to implement a Prevalon boots physician's order. 4. For Resident #60, the facility failed to implement a Geri leg sleeves physician's order. 5. For Resident #53, the facility failed to implement interventions on the fall's care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment for two Residents (#53 and #102) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #53, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement effective interventions to prevent falls, resulting in ten unwitnessed falls in 80 days. Additionally, on all days of survey the facility failed to implement falls interventions indicated on Resident #53's plan of care and physician orders. 2. For Resident #102, who has sustained 7 unwitnessed falls at the facility, the facility failed to supervise and provide Darco boots while he/she transferred from the toilet and ambulated, as indicated in his/her plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately document in the medical record for 5 Residents (#8, #10, #22, #46 and #60) out of a total sample of 26 Residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #8 the facility failed to maintain his/her advanced directives accurately and consistently in the medical record. 2. For Resident # 10, the facility failed to document accurately that a wheelchair wanderguard was not placed on the wheelchair. 3. For Resident #22, the facility failed to document accurately that a handroll was not applied. 4. For Resident #46, the facility failed to document accurately that Prevalon boots were not applied. 5. For Resident #60, the facility failed to document accurately that Geri leg sleeves were not applied.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice for two Residents (#22 and #8) out of a sample of 26 residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #22, the facility failed to apply a handroll as ordered. 2. For Resident #8, the facility failed to implement physician's orders for air mattress settings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities for two Residents (#26 and #46) out of a sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Residents #26 and #46, the facility failed to provide one to one Activity visits as indicated in the care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy review, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident who required respiratory care (continuous oxygen) received care consistent with professional standard of practice for one (Resident #317) out of a total sample of 26 Residents. Specifically, for Resident #317, nursing administered continuous oxygen without a physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. Specifically, the facility failed to conduct an assessment for trauma per the facility policy, and develop a comprehensive plan of care for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) including triggers for re-traumatization for 1 Resident (#37) who had an active diagnosis of PTSD out of a total sample of 26 Residents.
30 fire safety citations on file: 18 on February 12, 2026, 12 on February 6, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 16, 2024 | Fine | $10,517 |
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) | 3.82 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.42 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.34 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.71 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.2% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.8% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.75 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 3.99 on weekdays and 3.42 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 13.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.70 in April to June 2025 to 3.82 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 | 3.82 | 0.77 | 3.99 | 3.42 | 13.2% | 0 of 90 | 109 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.81 | 0.66 | 3.96 | 3.44 | 18.3% | 0 of 92 | 111 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.65 | 0.64 | 3.78 | 3.32 | 22.4% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.70 | 0.69 | 3.89 | 3.24 | 23.2% | 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.
| 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 | 19.1 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 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 | 13.4 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.3 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.3 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.6 | 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 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Hunt Nursing & Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (37.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
37.7% 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. 73 eligible stays.
11.3% 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. 133 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 79 eligible stays.
22.2% 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. 63 residents counted.
1.3% 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. 80 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. 80 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. 4 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: DANVERS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC. CMS links this home to Integritus Healthcare, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairview Extended Care Services Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/26/1990 |
| Integritus Healthcare Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/26/1990 | |
| Integritus Healthcare Management Services Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Integritus Healthcare Inc | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Jones, William | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gingras, Marcie Jo | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/13/2021 | |
| Jones, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/1993 | |
| Fairview Extended Care Services Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Integritus Healthcare Management Services Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gingras, Marcie Jo | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/31/2021 | |
| Jones, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Poudel, Santosh | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Spittle, Sharon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Fairview Extended Care Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2025 | |
| Integritus Healthcare Management Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2025 | |
| Gingras, Marcie Jo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Jones, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Poudel, Santosh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Spittle, Sharon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 |
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.