Home / Massachusetts / Plymouth
19 Obery Street, Plymouth, MA 02360 · Plymouth County · (508) 747-4790
101 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1985
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225284 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 59 health citations since August 2023, 9 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $290,784 in the last three years; the largest was $197,977, and the latest is dated February 13, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.60 of those hours.
52.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Next Step 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 59 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was receiving Hospice Services, and had physician's orders for the administration of morphine, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was free from a significant medication error, when after nursing obtained new orders to administer a higher dosage of morphine to Resident #1, the previous order for morphine was not discontinued as ordered, and he/she was administered both dosages at the same time in error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that adequate supervision and interventions were implemented to prevent accidents and failed to maintain an environment free of accident hazards for four Residents (#80, #15, #82, #84) of a total of 20 residents sampled. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Ensure adequate supervision for Resident #80, a known elopement risk, and enabled access to a designated smoking area with unlocked doors that had access to outside of the facility, thus placing Resident #80 at Immediate Jeopardy risk for serious harm or death. In addition to the Immediate Jeopardy, non-compliance of this requirement also existed because the facility failed to:2. Provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents and to accurately assess Resident #15, who was found to reuse cigarette butts and wore clothing with burn holes; and3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, policy review, and document review, the facility failed to set priorities for an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI). Specifically, the facility failed to develop a performance improvement project (PIP) to track, investigate, analyze and use data and information related to:1. The identification of adverse events of residents who required supervision leaving the facility unattended; and2. Resident Council and individual resident identified concerns with call light wait times.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for three Residents (#2, #8, and #39), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:1. For Resident #2, to inform Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 timely of medication dosage recommendations following a neurology consult, resulting in a 22-day delay in ordering and implementing the recommendations; 2. For Resident #8, to obtain a urology consultant report per NP #1's order resulting in a 57-day delay in reviewing the recommendations; and3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a person-centered plan of care with individualized interventions for trauma-informed care was developed for one Resident (#84), out of 20 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess and implement care plan interventions for Resident #84 who had a history of trauma.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Properly label and date food products in the main kitchen walk-in refrigerator, and store food products in the walk-in refrigerator off the floor; and 2. Ensure in two of two kitchenettes, resident food was discarded after three days, and food storage cabinets were kept clean.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Arbitration Agreement presented to residents as part of the admission packet included the required information for three Residents (#75, #85, and #59), out of a sample of three records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the agreement explicitly granted Residents thirty days after signing to rescind the Agreement and failed to explicitly state that the residents (or representatives) were not required to sign as a condition for admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Arbitration Agreement presented to residents as part of the admission packet included the required information for three Residents (#75, #85, and #59), out of a sample of three records reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the agreement provided for the selection of a neutral arbitrator agreed upon by both parties and the selection of a venue that was convenient to both parties.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen (O2) equipment was maintained in a sanitary manner to help decrease the risk of potential contamination and infection for two Residents (#21 and #15), out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#21), out of a total sample of 20 residents, was assessed by the Interdisciplinary Care Team for self-administration of all their medications and had a physician's order to self-administer medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents/resident representatives had the right to voice and formulate grievances, have those grievances responded to promptly, and be provided a resolution to their grievance for one Resident (#39), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their policy and procedure when Resident #39 voiced a complaint regarding music playing outside his/her room disrupting his/her ability to be comfortable in his/her room.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to coordinate an assessment with the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) program for one Resident (#9), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to document Resident #9's bipolar disorder diagnosis in Section B at admission and did not initiate a new PASRR Level I Assessment following the addition of a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis to the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement and individualize comprehensive care plans for one Resident (#39), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for the care needs and monitoring related to the diagnosis of Type II DM and the use of a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#71), out of 20 sampled residents, received care and treatment to promote healing of a pressure ulcer. Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician's orders to offload his/her wound, float his/her heels when in bed, and follow wound orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was moderately cognitively impaired, had a Legal Guardianship in effect, and was known to leave the Facility without notifying staff, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with an adequate level of staff supervision, to prevent him/her from eloping, when on several occasions Resident #1 exited the Facility unbeknownst to staff and they were unaware of his/her whereabouts for extended periods of time.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #2), who was known to exhibit intrusive, combative and aggressive behaviors towards staff, residents, and visitors, the Facility failed to ensure that other residents residing on his/her unit were free from physical abuse, when between May 2025 and August 2025, Resident #2 was involved in several altercations, which included being witnessed by staff as he/she punched a resident in the stomach, climbed into another residents bed and became combative with attempts to be redirected, and it was alleged that he/she punched a resident on the arm and in the face during an unwitnessed altercation. Resident #2's combative and aggressive behaviors place other residents on his/her unit at increased risk for physical abuse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of four sampled residents (Resident #2) the Facility failed to ensure they reported and/or investigated incidents/allegations of abuse when 1) a family member reported that he attempted to redirect Resident #2 out of his family members room by pushing on Resident #2 and 2) Resident #2 punched a staff member in the face, neither of which were reported or investigated by the Facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews and observation, for two of four sampled residents (Resident #1 and #4), the Facility failed to ensure they developed and/or consistently implemented and followed interventions identified in their plan of care related to the placement and use of a magnetic stop sign across their doorways to minimize the risk of other residents wandering into their rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1) whose Plan of Care related to Activities of Daily living (ADLs) indicated that he/she required continual supervision (staff member to be with him/her during entire task) with meals, the facility failed to ensure that staff consistently implemented and followed his/her care plan interventions, when on 05/13/25, Resident #1 was served his/her breakfast tray, then left unsupervised in his/her room with his/her meal, he/she spilled a hot beverage on his/her upper legs, and sustained second-degree burns (partial thickness, involves both the outer (epidermis) and underlying layer (dermis) of skin, they cause pain, redness, swelling, and blistering) to the front side of his/her left thigh, which required treatment. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1), who required continual supervision (staff member to stay with resident during entire task) during meals, the Facility failed to ensure that he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff supervision during meals in an effort to prevent an incident resulting in an injury. On 05/13/25, Resident #1 was served his/her breakfast tray, left unsupervised in his/her room with his/her meal, spilled a hot beverage on his/her upper legs, and sustained second-degree burns (partial thickness, involves both the outer (epidermis) and underlying layer (dermis) of skin, they cause pain, redness, swelling, and blistering) to the front side of his/her left thigh and required daily treatment to the areas for around four weeks. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and test tray results, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at appetizing temperatures for two out of two test trays conducted on two of two units.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a wound received necessary treatment and services to promote healing for one Resident (#32), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to address the wound physician's recommendations and accurately implement care and treatment of a non-pressure wound to the Resident's right first toe.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#42), out of a total sample of 18 residents, received care and treatment to promote healing of pressure injuries. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately transcribe and implement orders for changes in treatments for the care of a stage four pressure ulcer injury (full thickness extending tissue loss that exposes bone, muscle, or tendon) to the left heel.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a person-centered plan of care accounting for the Resident's experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization for one Resident (#24), with a history of trauma, out of a total sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%. Specifically, one of two nurses made three errors during the medication pass out of a total of 26 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 11.54%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety to prevent the potential of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Properly label and date food products stored in the walk-in refrigerator in the main kitchen and discard prepared food when past their use by date; 2. Ensure staff did not store personal food items in one of two resident nourishment kitchen refrigerators/freezers reviewed; and 3. Ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene when serving afternoon snacks to residents on the 2nd Floor Unit, blue hallway, and ensure the snack cart did not enter resident rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program with a complete system of surveillance to identify any trends of actual or potential infections, within the facility using their predetermined infection definition criteria.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program which included antibiotic use protocols and monitoring of antibiotic use in accordance with the facility's antibiotic stewardship program.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#279) was provided a summary of their baseline care plan meeting, out of a total sample of 18 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were maintained during medication administration. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure three medications ordered by the physician were available and administered as ordered to one Resident (#66), out of a total of six residents observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for the care of an indwelling suprapubic cystostomy catheter (surgical procedure that creates a connection between the bladder and the skin to drain urine) for one Resident (#24), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident's urinary collection bag was kept below the level of the bladder and not in contact with the floor to help prevent catheter-related urinary tract infections and any related problems.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the necessary respiratory care and services for one Resident (#57), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP - non-invasive breathing machine that helps people breathe when they're having trouble) mask and tubing and oxygen (O2) concentrator (medical device that separates nitrogen from the air around you so you can breathe up to 95% pure oxygen) equipment to help decrease the risk of potential contamination and exposure of infection to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#65), out of five residents selected for unnecessary medication review, that their medication regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect the brain and nervous system including but not limited to antidepressants, antianxiety, antipsychotics, and sedatives). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication order for Ativan (anti-anxiety) was limited to 14 days unless the provider documented a rational to extend the PRN and the order was written for a specific longer duration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- screen to determine if a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability and/or serious mental illness (ID/DD/SMI) and needed further evaluation) for one Resident (#25), out of a total sample of 18 residents, who transferred to the facility in 2019.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was severely cognitively impaired, was essentially helpless, unable to participate in care due to left sided hemiparesis (partial paralysis on one side of the body) and had been assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, the Facility failed to ensure that his/her care plan related to activities of daily living was updated and accurately identified his/her individual care needs that he/she required two staff members to assist at all times during the provision of care, due to impaired mobility and safety concerns. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was helpless, unable to participate in self care, had limited mobility due to left sided hemiparesis (paralysis on one side of the body), and who had been assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff assistance during care to maintain his/her safety, in an effort to prevent incidents/accidents resulting in an injury. On 10/13/23, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 provided personal care to Resident #1 in bed without another staff member present to assist her, when she turned Resident #1 on his/her side in bed, he/she began to slide, CNA #1 could not manage him/her, and Resident #1 fell out of bed, landing on the floor on his/her right side. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose physicians' orders indicated he/she was a full code (if a person's heart stops beating and/or they stop breathing, all resuscitation procedures will be provided to keep them alive), the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided life saving measures to him/her, when on [DATE], at approximately 5:30 A.M., after Nurse #1 found Resident #1 unresponsive, without pulse and without respiration, she did not call a Code Blue, per facility policy, and Resident #1 was not administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Resident #1 was pronounced dead at the facility, approximately two hours after nursing initially found him/her unresponsive.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose physicians' orders indicated he/she was a full code (if a person's heart stops beating and/or they stop breathing, all resuscitation procedures will be provided to keep them alive), the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent and had the necessary skill set to respond in an emergency situation which included adequately assessing a resident who was unresponsive with a significant change in condition, calling a Code Blue, and initiating 911 to activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#70), out of a total sample of 20 residents, received care and treatment to promote healing of a facility acquired deep tissue injury (DTI) (localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear) and to help prevent wound deterioration, resulting in worsening of the DTI to a Stage 4 pressure injury (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle). Specifically, the facility failed to: a. Ensure staff informed the Resident's primary care provider of the wound provider's treatment recommendations after three consecutive wound care visits dated 1/25/23, 1/31/23, and 2/17/23 to help prevent continued deterioration of a left medial ankle pressure wound and implement treatments as ordered; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment and equipment and furniture in good repair, on one of two units.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, grievance book review, and interview, the facility failed to implement their grievance policy and ensure that: 1. Grievances voiced by residents were addressed and prompt efforts were made to resolve the grievances relative to smoking and overnight staff sleeping during their shift; 2. Five out of nine Grievance/Compliant Forms reviewed were completed properly and/or resolved within 3-5 working days; and 3. Staff documented receipt of all grievances on the Grievance Log which is used for tracking and trending purposes.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide an environment free of accident hazards as possible for three Residents (#21, #37, and #63), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #21, ensure supervision was provided, smoking articles were maintained safely, and protective equipment was utilized; 2. For Resident #37, ensure supervision was provided and smoking articles were maintained safely; and 3. For Resident #63, ensure that cigarettes were properly secured after use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for one Resident (#69) of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was assessed for removal resulting in the extended use of an indwelling device.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that seven Residents (#39, #70, #69, #53, #28, #62, and #18), in a total sample of 20 residents, had physician visits every 60 days which would alternate between the physician and the nurse practitioner (NP) (indicating the physician would see the resident every 120 days).
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, policies reviewed, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure targeted behaviors and signs and symptoms of side effects were adequately monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of psychotropic medication to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for two Residents (#13 and #15), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #13, to monitor for targeted behaviors with the use of psychotropic medication; and 2. For Resident #15, to monitor for signs and symptoms of side effects for a benzodiazepine being utilized for anxiety.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for one Resident (#70), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: a. ensure Novolog (Insulin Aspart) (fast acting insulin that controls blood sugar around meal times) injection solution was administered only if the capillary blood glucose (CBG) level was 120 or above in accordance with physician's orders, resulting in a potential for significant adverse consequences to the Resident; and b. monitor for potential signs and symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) related to the use of an anti-diabetic injectable medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain storage of all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, under proper temperature controls. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Compartments containing drugs and biologicals were locked when not in use, for one of two medication carts, on one of two floors; and 2. All drugs and biologicals were stored under proper temperature controls, for one of one medication refrigerator inspected; and 3. For Resident #63, ensure all drugs and biologicals were safely secured in a locked compartment, located in the Resident's room; and 4. For Resident #39, ensure all drugs were safely secured in a locked compartment, located in the Resident's room.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy and record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete, accurate, organized, and readily accessible, for 3 out of 20 sampled residents, and for 2 out of 5 Residents observed during a medication pass. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #18, to ensure information received monthly from the dialysis center documenting new laboratory results and trends, was kept and included in the Resident's medical record; and 2. For Residents #26 and #16, to ensure Physician's orders for prescribed medication were complete, with instructions for mixing; and 3. For Resident #7, to ensure the medical record accurately reflects the parties responsible for each Resident; and 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 27 residents, out of a sample of 87 residents, were offered the COVID-19 vaccine in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records reviewed, the facility failed to treat one Resident (#28), of 20 sampled residents, with respect and dignity. Specifically, the facility failed to allow Resident #28 to exercise his/her right to smoke.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative was fully informed in advance and given information necessary to make health care decisions to the extent required by the court for one Resident (#15), from a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#39), that medications were not self-administered without a physician's order and an assessment for self-administration, out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a reasonable accommodation was made for one Resident (#1), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the call system button was accessible to the Resident to summon assistance when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to personal privacy and confidentiality was promoted and protected when a staff member provided a printed copy of the facility's Resident Census to a visitor.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement the Plan of Care for one Resident (#21), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement fall prevention and smoking interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered plan of care which included trauma informed approaches and identified triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization for one Resident (#62) with a history of trauma, out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed for two Residents (#13 and #21), of 20 sampled residents, the facility failed to monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) of medication. Specifically, for Residents #13 and #21 the facility failed to monitor for signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia (high and low blood sugars) with the administration of insulin (anti-diabetic injectable medication).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccination per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for one Resident (#42), out of a sample of five residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for three Residents (#53, #62, and #63), from a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #53, to accurately reflect the number of days he/she received an anticoagulant (a group of medications that decrease your blood's ability to clot); 2. For Resident #62, to accurately reflect the Resident's current use of tobacco, and complete the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) assessment; and 3. For Resident #63, to accurately reflect the Resident's current use of tobacco.
6 fire safety citations on file: 6 on August 30, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 13, 2026 | Fine | $70,811 |
| September 16, 2025 | Fine | $197,977 |
| August 5, 2025 | Fine | $10,358 |
| November 14, 2023 | Fine | $11,638 |
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) | 3.56 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.14 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.19 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.77 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.1% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 88.2% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.88 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 3.73 on weekdays and 3.14 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.32 in April to June 2025 to 3.56 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 | 3.56 | 0.60 | 3.73 | 3.14 | 12.3% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.08 | 0.61 | 3.24 | 2.67 | 17.4% | 0 of 92 | 87 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.18 | 0.60 | 3.34 | 2.78 | 12.1% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.32 | 0.67 | 3.50 | 2.87 | 15.4% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| 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 | 14.5 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 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 | 12.0 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.4 | 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 | 36.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.6 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Plymouth Harborside Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.0% 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. 58 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 109 eligible stays.
8.0% 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. 63 eligible stays.
31.3% 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. 67 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. 91 residents counted.
5.5% 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. 91 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. 23 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: 19 OBERY STREET OPERATOR LLC. CMS links this home to Next Step Healthcare, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Next Step Healthcare LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Dell'anno, Damian | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Stephan, William | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Dell'anno, Damian | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Stephan, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Next Step Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Nguyen, Nina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Rattan, Rohit | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/08/2023 | |
| Next Step Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/24/2025 | |
| Nguyen, Nina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Rattan, Rohit | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/08/2023 |
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.