Home / Massachusetts / Medford
300 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155 · Middlesex County · (781) 391-1783
142 certified beds, about 129 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225339 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 1, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since May 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.42 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
43.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Personal Healthcare Management, an affiliated group of 21 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for 5 Residents (#106, #3, #82, #117, and #99) out of a total sample of 31 residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #106, the facility failed to ensure nursing implemented physician orders for blood sugar checks and failed to administer medications as ordered.2. For Residents # 3, #82, #117, and #99, the facility failed to implement physician orders blood sugar checks and for insulin administration prior to the breakfast meal.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when one nurse observed made 4 errors out of 30 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 13.33%. Those errors impacted one Resident (#4), out of four residents observed.
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 medication carts were locked while a nurse was not present on the Pleasant View Unit and ensure nursing staff secured medications in the medication cart prior to leaving the cart unattended during medication pass.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a home-like environment on the [NAME] unit. Specifically, the facility failed to 1a. ensure room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom was cleaned thoroughly of urine residue and 1b. ensure the shower room was in good working condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two Residents (#13 and #15), out of 31 sampled residents. Specifically:For Resident #13 the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment was accurately coded for significant weight gain (section K). For Resident #15 the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment was accurately coded for the use of tobacco.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that an assessment for self-administering medication was completed and that the second floor remained free of unattended and unsecured medications for one Resident (#11) out of a total sample of 31 Residents. Specifically, for Resident #11, the facility failed to ensure the Resident was assessed to self-administer an inhaler and ensure it was secured safely in the Resident's room.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for one Resident (#106), out of a total sample of 31 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately document medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to implement an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff performed hand hygiene appropriately during the medication administration task.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure that residents are informed of their rights and of all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during their stay in the facility. Specifically, 22 out of 22 residents who attended the Resident Council Meeting on 7/10/24 said that they were not aware of the Resident's rights and that they are not reviewed regularly with them. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Resident Rights, dated as 5/9/24, indicated the following: -[The Facility] will ensure that each resident remains informed of his/ her rights, as well as all the rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during their stay. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure grievances voiced in the monthly Resident Council meetings were adequately addressed or resolved. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Grievance policy, dated as effective June 2021, indicated the following: -All residents at [the facility] shall be afforded the right to voice their grievances/ concerns with the expectation of a resolution, without the fear of discrimination or reprisal. Grievances can range from issues with care and treatment, to the behavior of staff and/ or of other concerns during their stay. -A grievance investigation and subsequent final report should be completed no later than seven (7) days from the receipt. Included in the grievance book provided to the survey team from the facility included Standards of Practice for resident and family grievances, undated. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility failed to meet the facility-determined minimum for nursing staff on the weekends. Findings Include: Review of the facility assessment indicated the following: ii. Attach or describe individual staff assignments. - Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Unit Managers meet daily to make sure staff assignments can meet our resident needs. We aim to have consistent RN (Registered Nurse) and CNA (Certified Nursing Aide) assignments as often as possible. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper hiring and use of five out of seven Certified Nursing Aides (CNAs) reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1) Ensure that two of seven CNA's reviewed were not employed as CNA's for more than four months after hire without having completed the competency evaluation program approved by the State. 2) Ensure that three of seven CNA's reviewed were not employed as CNAs prior to enrolling in a State-approved training and competency evaluation program. Findings Include: Review of the Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry information for employers indicated the following: - You can employ a Nurse Aide who has not yet completed training for no more than 90 days. The Nurse Aide must not be used on a temporary, per diem, leased, or any basis other than a permanent employee. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a dignified existence and self-determination, out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically: 1. The facility failed to ensure staff spoke with one Resident (#59) with respect and courtesy. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff received permission to look through and remove personal effects for one Resident (#49). 3. The facility failed to ensure staff spoke in a language understood by residents during care and resident areas. , Findings Include: Review of the facility policy Maintaining Resident Dignity dated 3/20/24, indicated: -The facility promotes care for Resident's in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each Resident's dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality. Areas of focus include: 6. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to identify and assess the use of side rails as a potential restraint for one Resident (#47) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Restraints, dated 2/2/24 indicated the following: -1. A physical restraint is any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment or material attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restrict freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. Any device that prevents a resident from freely and easily arising out of a chair or bed is considered a restraint. -3. Devices that restrict the resident's movements for resident safety are considered a restraint: -Bedrails (Resident must be able to easily and voluntarily get in and out of bed using a bedrail; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on employee record review and interview, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a CORI (criminal offender registry information) check before hire for two of the 13 employee files reviewed. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, titled The seven (7) components of a systemic approach to abuse prohibition, effective 3/2/24, indicated, but was not limited to, the following: 1. Screen: - All potential employees for a history of abuse neglect, or mistreating residents as defined by the applicable requirements. This includes attempting to obtain information from previous and/or current employers and checking with the appropriate licensing boards and registries. (sic.) c. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident-centered personalized care plan was developed and/or implemented for two Residents (#114 and #107) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #114, the facility failed to apply booties per his/her physician's order. 2. For Resident #107, the facility failed to implement a rehab screening per the plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary services to ensure one Resident (#49) was able to effectively communicate his/her needs out of a total sample of 25 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing implemented a physician's order for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) mask to be worn at bedtime for one Resident (#117), out of a total sample of 25 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed for Trauma Informed Care, with individualized interventions, for one Resident (#114) who had a history of trauma out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, for Resident #114, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive trauma care plan, with individualized triggers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan related to suicidal and homicidal ideation for one Resident (#56) out of a total of 25 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document a diagnosis of chronic obstructive sleep apnea for one Resident (#117) out of a total sample of 25 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, for one Resident (#22) of 28 sampled residents , the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan that includes instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for him/her, resulting in a fall, requiring nine stitches to his/her right ear.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure standards of quality of care for 2 Residents (#18 and #44), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, 1). for Resident #18 the colonoscopy preparation instructions were not followed, resulting in the procedure not occurring as planned and Resident #18 requiring hospitalization for dehydration and 2). for Resident #44 A. to ensure daily treatment to his/her right second toe was provided in accordance with the physician's orders, resulting in failure to monitor the wound for changes, pain, signs and symptoms of infection. Further, the treatment that was provided included a dressing which was not indicated by the physician's order potentially resulting in keeping the area moist and not dry. B. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed ensure residents identified as being at risk for falls received adequate supervision and revision of care plan interventions as needed to prevent falls, resulting in falls with injury for 2 Residents (#125 and #88) out of a total of 28 sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record 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 and that the Resident Council Group is made aware of efforts in place to address the concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement the medical plan of care for one Resident (#78), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to document in the medical record if the Resident used the BIPAP (Bilevel positive airway pressure, a respiratory treatment) treatment. Resident #78 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 and has diagnoses that include but not limited to heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 5/19/23 indicated Resident #78 scored a 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam, indicating he/she is cognitively intact. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for one Resident (#48), out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure 1 Resident (#79) was assessed for the ability to self administer medications out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#48,) was free from a potential restraint, out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, Resident #48 had a pillow placed under the fitted sheet, adjacent to his/her body, unable to be easily removed, and potentially keeping him/her from getting out of bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to identify and investigate a bruise of unknown origin for 1 Resident (#110) out of a total of 28 sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to review and revise the plan of care related to substance use and behaviors for 1 Resident (#115) out of a total sample 28 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement professional standard of care for 1 Resident (#44), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement the medical plan of care for the treatment to a necrotic right toe and documented that the treatment was being administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) for 2 Residents (#337 and #51) out of a total sample of 28 residents. For Resident #337, who was dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living, the facility failed to provide incontinent care and repositioning. For Resident #51, the facility failed to a). provide assistance during meals and b). provide assistance with bathing, incontinent care, positioning and supervision for eating.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice for the care related dressing changes and measuring the length of a Peripheral Inserted Central Catheter (PICC- a long thin tube that is advanced into the vein of the upper arm and the internal tip of the catheter is in the superior vena cava, one of the central venous system veins that carries blood to the heart), for one Residents (#6) out of 25 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist recommendation, agreed upon by the prescriber, was implemented for one Resident (#8) out of 5 residents reviewed, out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet, as ordered by the physician, was provided for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement practices for the prevention of potential infection on one of three resident care units. Specifically, two nurses failed to perform hand hygiene when performing a skin treatment for one Resident (#44), out of a total sample of 28 residents.
4 fire safety citations on file: 1 on August 1, 2025, 3 on May 25, 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) | 3.42 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.14 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.85 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.13 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.0% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 27.8% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.26 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 3.54 on weekdays and 3.14 on weekends, 11% 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 3.45 in April to June 2025 to 3.42 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 | 3.42 | 0.45 | 3.54 | 3.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 129 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 0.51 | 3.59 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 125 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.48 | 0.56 | 3.66 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 121 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.45 | 0.54 | 3.60 | 3.08 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 126 |
| 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 | 7.2 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.1 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.8 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (33.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
33.0% 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. 79 eligible stays.
11.5% 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. 123 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 75 eligible stays.
52.5% 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. 59 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 99 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 99 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. 10 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: MRNC OPERATING LLC. CMS links this home to Personal Healthcare Management, a group of 21 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arb II Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 15% | 12/31/2021 |
| Cartay Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 25% | 11/07/2011 |
| Ebz II Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 35% | 12/31/2021 |
| Nedlaw II Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 25% | 12/31/2021 |
| Aweh, Nelson | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Cook, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/06/2020 | |
| Walden, Yehudah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/07/2011 | |
| Zagelbaum, Ephraim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/07/2011 | |
| Mrnc Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/29/2025 | |
| Aweh, Nelson | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/26/2025 | |
| Barth, Alexander | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2012 | |
| Cook, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2020 |
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.