Home / Massachusetts / West Yarmouth
579 Buck Island Road, West Yarmouth, MA 02673 · Barnstable County · (413) 544-3329
72 certified beds, about 64 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225374 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 14, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 42 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.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.08 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.38 of those hours.
32.9% 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was on a bowel management program, with physician's orders that included orders for administration of laxatives if he/she had not had a bowel movement in three days (for a total of nine shifts), the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided care and services that met professional standards of quality, when on two separate occasions although Resident #1 had not had a bowel movement in three days (nine shifts) he/she was not administered laxatives by nursing as ordered by the physician and in accordance with the facility's bowel management program.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1), who required the physical assistance of staff with Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record when Bowel Movement Records were not consistently completed and daily documentation (across all three shifts) were frequently left blank.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for five Residents (#7, #84, #63, #4, and #72), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:1. For Residents #7 and #84, to ensure air mattress settings were implemented as ordered by the physician;2. For Resident #63, to ensure physician's orders for blood pressure medication administration were followed;3. For Resident #4, to ensure physician's orders for oxygen flow rate were followed; and4. For Resident #72, to ensure physician's orders for wound dressing treatments were followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate the grievance process on behalf of one Resident (#52), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, for Resident #52, the facility failed to initiate an investigation when his/her pants were determined to be missing, file a grievance for the missing pants, and follow the grievance process, resulting in a 19-day delay in offering and/or providing alternative clothing.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an accurate medical record was maintained for one Resident (#83), out of three closed records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #83's medical record accurately reflected an emergent transfer to the hospital due to change in medical status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were accurately labeled and stored in accordance with acceptable professional standards. Specifically, in one of two medication carts reviewed, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in their original packaging.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to adhere to infection prevention and control standards of practice to prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Clean and disinfect shared equipment between residents for three of four Residents (#63, #37, and #25) observed during medication administration; and 2. Perform hand hygiene as indicated for three of four Residents (#63, #37, and #25) observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information which included the current date and actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff including Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), and Certified Nurse Aides (CNA), and the resident census was posted daily as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff 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 properly label, date, and store food products in two of two nourishment kitchenettes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections when the facility was currently experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 infection. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure proper COVID-19 outbreak testing procedures were implemented for 3 of 3 facility staff members reviewed representing 2 of 2 COVID-19 affected units; 2a. Ensure staff rapid antigen COVID-19 testing (BinaxNOW) was conducted in a manner that is consistent with current standards of practice and manufacturer's instructions for use for 3 of 3 staff members observed; and b. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to consistently implement approaches to prevent falls and provide adequate oversight to prevent future falls for one Resident (#50) who was considered a fall risk and had suffered nine falls between January 2024 and June 5, 2024 resulting in three injuries on 3/3/24, 5/3/24, and 5/8/24 including one hospitalization, out of 17 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on line listing review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their antibiotic stewardship program. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain complete surveillance line listing reports to ensure antibiotic use protocols were followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain comfortable room temperatures for two Residents (#18 and #19) residing on one of two units, out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure there was a resolution for a grievance/complaint of an allegation of physical abuse for one Resident (#57), out of six grievances reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for potential physical abuse by a staff member for one Resident (#57), out of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate and report an allegation of physical abuse for Resident #57, in accordance with the facility's abuse policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was reported timely to the state agency as required for one Resident (#57), of a total sample of 17 residents
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for one Resident (#57), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was thoroughly investigated in accordance with the facility's abuse policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed for one Resident (#12), out of a total sample of 17 residents, to develop and implement individualized person-centered care plans to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans, including measurable objectives and timeframes were implemented.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders and ensure diagnostic tests were completed timely, as ordered, for two Residents (#20 and #13), out of a sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for the care of an indwelling catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag outside the body) for one Resident (#18), out of total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff were consistently providing Foley catheter care and ongoing assessment to help prevent catheter-related urinary tract infections and any related problems.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were coordinated with the hospice provider to implement the resident's plan of care as required in the provider contract agreement for three Residents (#30, #21, #50), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #30, to provide on-going documentation, and maintain a complete medical record of services to ensure prompt and effective communication for continuity of care for the Resident; 2. For Resident #50, to ensure a current signed recertification statement for hospice eligibility and a schedule of hospice services were available in the medical record to maintain continuity of care; and 3. For Resident #21, to provide a schedule of hospice services, including involvement and collaboration of the coordinated plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the status for one Resident (#19), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, and whose comprehensive plan of care indicated he/she required the use of a mat on the floor next to his/her bed for safety, the Facility failed to ensure to staff consistently implemented and followed safety interventions identified in his/her plan of care related to the use of floor mat(s) while in bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of four sampled Employee Personnel File (Nurse Aide (NA) #1), who was contracted to work at the Facility through a staffing agency, the Facility failed to ensure that Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) and Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) checks were conducted prior to her date of employment at the Facility, in accordance with their Abuse Policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was cognitively intact, and required maximum assistance from staff to meet his/her care needs, the Facility failed to ensure that after being made aware on 10/15/23 of an allegation of potential verbal abuse, that they obtained and maintained evidence that a thorough investigation was completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that all medications were properly stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles on two of two units reviewed with four of four medication carts reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow 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 stored, labeled, dated and maintained under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen walk-in refrigerator and freezer; 2. Handle ready to eat food (food which does not require cooking or further preparation prior to consumption) utilizing proper hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination; and 3. Wear hair restraints in the main kitchen during meal preparation and service.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance Committee identified quality deficient areas and to develop and implement an appropriate corrective action plan, to ensure satisfactory outcomes from concerns brought forth from resident council meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement the facility's grievance policy for five of five grievances reviewed for Residents (#4, #9, #1B, #30, and #1A). Specifically, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate grievances identified in the Grievance log, and/or if a grievance/complaint involved a potential violation of a resident right or allegation of abuse or misappropriation, they were reported to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's policy and thoroughly investigated, reported, and/or protected the resident's safety for seven Residents (#39, #218, #4, #9, #1B, #30, and #1A), of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #39, to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse by a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was thoroughly investigated in accordance with the facility abuse policy; 2. For Resident #218, to ensure an allegation of mistreatment was investigated after the Resident witnessed the alleged verbal abuse of Resident #39 by a CNA; and 3. For Residents #4, #9, #1B, #30, and #1A, to ensure staff thoroughly investigated and protected the Residents pending the outcome of the investigations of alleged mistreatment, abuse, and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and resident interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that allegations of resident abuse were reported in accordance with the facility policy, for seven Residents, (#39, #218, #4, #9, #1B, #30, #1A), of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #39, an allegation of verbal abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was reported timely to the state agency, as required; 2. For Resident #218, an allegation of mistreatment was reported timely to the state agency after the Resident witnessed the alleged verbal abuse of their roommate (Resident #39) by a CNA.; and 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for seven Residents (#39, #218, #4, #9, #1B, #30, #1A), of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #39, to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was thoroughly investigated in accordance with the facility abuse policy; 2. For Resident #218, to ensure an allegation of mistreatment was thoroughly investigated after the Resident witnessed the alleged verbal abuse of Resident #39 by a CNA; and 3. For Residents #4, #9, #1B, #30, #1A, to ensure staff thoroughly investigated and protected the Residents pending the outcome of the investigations of alleged mistreatment, abuse, and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for two Residents (#45 and #39), out of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #45, to consistently implement care plan interventions for the Resident's risk for falls; and 2. For Resident #39, to develop a care plan for the care and treatment of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line, or for a urinary tract infection (UTI) with Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus (strain of bacteria).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision and consistently implemented effective care plan interventions to prevent seven falls for one Resident (#24), out of 18 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three Residents (#13, #24, and #45) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, in a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #13, resident specific, targeted behaviors were identified and monitored for the use of Clonazepam (used to treat anxiety), Zyprexa (antipsychotic), and Lamotrigine (anticonvulsant that also treats bipolar disorder); 2. For Resident #24, resident specific, targeted behaviors were identified and monitored for the use of Sertraline (antidepressant); and 3. For Resident #45, resident specific, targeted behaviors were identified and monitored for the use of Citalopram (antidepressant) and Risperdal (antipsychotic).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and test tray results, the facility failed to ensure foods and beverages were prepared by methods which conserved nutritional value, flavor, appearance, palatability, and appetizing temperatures for two of three test trays observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that acceptable infection control and prevention measures were implemented to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff properly handled a medication tablet that was dropped into the medication cart during the medication pass observation; 2. For Resident #56, ensure resident care equipment was santized following its use for a Resident with an active infection and on transmission-based precautions; and 3. Develop and implement a Water Management Program as part of their ongoing risk management for Legionella infection or other waterborne pathogens with a system of surveillance that included a facility risk assessment, testing protocols, ongoing monitoring of control measure locations, and annual water testing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed for one Resident (#16), out of a total sample of 18 residents, to safely maintain and store respiratory tubing when not in use by the Resident per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Hospice provider provided Home Health Aide (HHA) services per the plan of care, for one Resident (#37), out of a sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy/document review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that one staff member, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3, out of 5 employee files reviewed, received annual abuse/neglect training in accordance with the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident and/or the Resident's representative and the Ombudsman were provided with a written notice of transfer as required for one Resident (#37), out of a total sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident's representative was provided with a written notice of a bed-hold as required for one Resident (#37), out of a total sample of 18 residents.
21 fire safety citations on file: 2 on November 14, 2025, 15 on August 12, 2024, 4 on June 15, 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) | 4.08 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.38 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.69 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.29 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.41 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.9% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.40 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 4.24 on weekdays and 3.69 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.90 in April to June 2025 to 4.08 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 | 4.08 | 0.38 | 4.24 | 3.69 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 64 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.17 | 0.31 | 4.33 | 3.76 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 60 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.98 | 0.31 | 4.14 | 3.59 | 0.0% | 3 of 92 | 67 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.90 | 0.41 | 4.12 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 2 of 91 | 65 |
| 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 | 14.2 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 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 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.5 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 30.6 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 39.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.4 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mayflower Place Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.9% 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. 471 eligible stays.
12.2% 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. 428 eligible stays.
11.4% this home
Worse than 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. 300 eligible stays.
74.0% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts51.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 185 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 268 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 268 residents counted.
99.5% 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. 182 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: MAPLEWOOD MAYFLOWER PLACE SNF LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G&h Se Holdco, LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Maplewood Operating Holdco, LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Amx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Arx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| G&h Se Holdco, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Mlx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Shx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Tgx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Gaston, Thomas | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Herlet, Shane | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Lefkowitz, Mathew | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Miller, Arthur | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Miller, Arthur | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/31/2025 | |
| G&h Se Holdco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Maplewood Operating Holdco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Maplewood Senior Living, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/19/2014 | |
| Brewer, Scott | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Gaston, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Herlet, Shane | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/11/2025 | |
| Lewis, Dianna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/18/2024 | |
| Yung, Alarick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/17/2025 | |
| Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2024 | |
| Maplewood Senior Living, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/09/2026 | |
| Brewer, Scott | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2026 | |
| Lewis, Dianna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/18/2024 | |
| Yung, Alarick | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/17/2025 |
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.