98 Hospitality Drive, Barre, VT 05641 · Washington County · (802) 229-0308
115 certified beds, about 75 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 475020 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 4, 2026, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Vermont average is 7.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 55 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $307,847 in the last three years; the largest was $149,292, and the latest is dated May 8, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.91 hours per resident per day, against 4.22 across Vermont and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.63 of those hours.
72.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Vermont average 55.4%).
CMS links it to Stellar Health Group, an affiliated group of 7 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 55 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to Identify a resident-to-resident altercation as abuse (Resident #1 and Resident #2) and failed to immediately report the incident as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and prepare in accordance with professional standards for food service safety per observation of stored dirty, greasy, and wet pots and of unclean kitchen equipment. Per observation on 2/2/26 at approximately 10:48 AM, observed numerous pots and pans that were wet on the inside and outside and not dried prior to stacking. Several other pans were noted to be greasy. Per observation on 2/2/26 at approximately 10:58 AM, the meat slicer was observed to have some dry particles on the back of the blade. Per interview on 2/2/26 at approximately 11:02 AM, the Kitchen Manager confirmed the above observations. Per observation on 2/2/26 at approximately 11:03 AM, the floor stand mixer was noted to have a dried, tacky white substance on the underside of the mixer arm, and on the backsplash under the mixer arm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accurate advanced directive choices were indicated in the electronic medical record for 2 of 21 sampled residents (Resident # 10 and Resident #29).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to provide palatable and appealing food for 10 of 19 sampled Residents (Resident #3, Resident #37, Resident #5, Resident #30, Resident #8, Resident #11, Resident #42, Resident #43, Resident #1, and Resident #27).
Inspectors wrotePer observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to determine whether it is clinically appropriate for residents to self-administer medications for one of one sampled resident (Resident #43). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous thee recertification surveys, dated 2/6/25, 8/19/24, and 3/01/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident from eloping from a facility for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #45).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #43). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous three recertification surveys, dated 2/6/25, 8/19/24, and 3/01/24
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to perform adequate hand hygiene during a dressing change for 1 of 22 sampled Residents (Resident #67). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous recertification survey dated 2/6/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 7 residents in the applicable sample (Resident #1, #2, and #3) received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent or promote healing and prevent infection of a pressure injury. As a result, Resident #1 developed an unstageable pressure injury which became necrotic (death of tissue); requiring hospitalization, and resulted in death related to due to osteomyelitis and sepsis of the pressure injury. This citation is at the immediate jeopardy level due to the facility's failure to prevent and treat pressure injury resulting in infection and death of 1 resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director assisted the facility with the implementation of resident care policies, specifically related to the total skin program at the facility, and failed to coordinate the medical care in the facility. As a result, one resident died of sepsis related to a pressure injury of the sacrum (Resident #1). This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents at risk for skin impairment and pressure injury residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for 3 residents out of 7 sampled (Resident #1, #2, and #3) related to skin, wounds, including pressure prevention interventions and care planning for actual pressure injury. This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with this violation cited during a previous recertification survey dated 8/19/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that physicians and other providers (as delegated to per regulation) review the residents' total program of care, including skin, pressure injury risk and prevention and treatment plan at each visit as required for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Resident's #1, #3, and #4). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with this violation cited during a previous recertification survey dated 8/19/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that licensed nurses have the specific competencies necessary to care for residents' needs as identified through resident assessments and the plan of care for 4 of 5 sampled nurses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's power of attorney (POA) of a change in condition on 3/14/25, related to a new pressure ulcer identified on his/her sacrum for 1 resident in the sample of 7 (Resident #1). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during two previous recertification surveys, dated 2/6/25 and 3/1/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This has the potential to impact all residents. This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous recertification survey, dated 08/19/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and , it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct and document a facility wide assessment. This has the potential to impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of policies and procedures, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain facility-wide systems for the prevention, identification, and control of infection and communicable disease of residents, staff and visitors through surveillance, staff training and following established policies and procedures related to changing oxygen tubing, hand washing, cleaning and disinfection of reusable equipment, proper use and disposal of PPE (personal protective equipment), and facility cleanliness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #27 and Resident #35) related to palliative care; and failed to implement care plan interventions related to supervision for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident #363). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous two recertification surveys, dated 08/19/24 and 03/01/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing activities program to support residents in their choice of group, individual, and independent activities to meet the interests of and support the well-being of each resident as evidenced by a lack of engaging activities both in and out of resident rooms for 6 of 20 sampled residents (Residents #2, #19, #26, #35, #53 and # 563).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 7 residents [Resident #363, Resident #463, Resident #57, Resident #52, Resident #312, Resident #8, and Resident #64] of 14 sampled residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide or obtain from an outside resource routine and emergency dental services to meet the needs of each resident for 3 of 20 sampled residents (Residents #19, #46, and #463). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous recertification surveys dated 08/19/2024.
Inspectors wrotePer observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to determine whether it is clinically appropriate for residents to self-administer medications for one sampled resident (Resident #364). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous two recertification surveys, dated 08/19/24 and 03/01/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident choices specific to aspects of their life that were important to them for 1 resident in a standard survey sample of 20 residents. (Resident #563).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a physician was notified of symptoms requiring an as needed medication whose prescription had expired for one of 20 sampled residents (Resident #25).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 20 sampled residents (Resident #25) was provided necessary assistance to carry out activities of daily living related to grooming and personal hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of 20 sampled residents (Resident #20) received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were not 5% or greater. The total error rate for all observations was calculated at 43%. There were 30 medication administration opportunities observed resulting in 13 errors for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #12) due to the late administration of 12 medications, not following administration recommendations, and not administering an as needed (PRN) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #364). This is a repeat deficiency for this facility, with violations cited during the previous two recertification surveys, dated 08/19/24 and 03/01/24
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption of one of 20 sampled residents (Resident #4).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to appoint an administrator licensed by the state to be responsible for managing the facility. This has the potential to negatively impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to hold a current license from the State Agency to operate as a nursing home. This has the potential to negatively impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to provide necessary housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure residents have a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 2 of 2 open resident units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide dignity and respect for 4 of 23 sampled residents (Residents #2, #6, #5, and #103) and residents on 1 of 2 units (Unit B).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents or resident representatives received written notification of the facility bed hold policy on residents' discharge to the hospital for 1 of 23 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions related to catheter care and monitoring for 1 [Res.#103] and failed to identify and implement interventions for an actual urinary tract infection and the use of antibiotic therapy for (Resident #5) for 2 of 2 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 of 23 residents sampled (Resident #16), related to significant medication error and symptomatic eye pain.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control measures related to catheter care for 1 resident [Res.#103] of 2 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to Identify a resident's past history of trauma, and/or triggers which may cause re-traumatization for 3 applicable residents (Residents #22, #31, and #28).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that records are complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized related to dental records for all residents and medication reviews for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents #16, #32, and #31).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident for 2 applicable residents (Resident #31 and #38).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that allegations involving abuse are reported no later than 2 hours to the Administrator of the facility and the State Survey Agency for 2 applicable residents (Resident #31 and #38).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate and investigate an investigation of an alleged violation of sexual abuse for 2 applicable residents (Resident #31 and #38).
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of accident hazards for 1 resident [Res.#11] of 34 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) related to obtaining urinalyses (UA) and culture and sensitivity [C&S; a test to determine if there is an infection, what germ is causing the infection, and what medication will work best to treat the infection] as requested by medical providers in a timely manner. As a result, Resident #1 and #2 suffered symptoms of urinary tract infections (UTI), a disease that can be diagnosed with a urinalysis and C&S, and were both transferred to the emergency department (ED) with sepsis [a life-threatening complication of an infection] caused by a UTI.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain an EKG (electrocardiogram; a diagnostic test to evaluate heart function) to meet the needs of its residents for 1 applicable resident (Resident #2). As a result, Resident #2 was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) and later to the ICU (intensive care unit) to manage the cardiac complications including atrial fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate) with RVR (rapid ventricular response; abnormal rhythm originating in the lower chambers of the heart) and NSTEMI Type II (a heart attack due to mismatched oxygen supply and demand to the heart muscle), both cardiac conditions can potentially be diagnosed with an EKG.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the faciliy failed to implement their policy regarding COVID-19 immunizations by failing to obtain vaccine supply and systematically provide education, obtain consents, and offer vaccines in a timely manner to all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide mental health services and individualized care approaches that address the assessed needs of the resident for 1 applicable resident (Residents #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet each resident's needs and the facility failed to collaborate with the pharmacist to assure that effective policies and procedures were established and implemented for one applicable resident (Resident #2).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of any significant medication errors for one applicable resident (Resident #2) related to the abrupt stop of a medication that should have been titrated down and the discontinuation of a medication due to the facility's inability to acquire the medication, putting Resident #2 at risk for medical complications and increased behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 5 residents on A Wing (Residents #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6) as evidenced by not providing access to call lights so that they may make their needs known.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from chemical restraints for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) as evidenced by administration of medications without proper indication for use and despite experiencing side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that services provided meet professional standards of quality as evidenced by failing to follow physicians' orders for one of 3 sampled residents (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all professional staff are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with applicable State laws for 1 or 4 sampled licensed nurses (RN #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 applicable residents (Resident #2) was free from abuse.
8 fire safety citations on file: 1 on August 6, 2025, 7 on February 6, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2025 | Fine | $80,698 |
| August 19, 2024 | Fine | $77,857 |
| February 1, 2024 | Fine | $149,292 |
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 | Vermont | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.91 | 4.22 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.63 | 0.80 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.44 | 3.66 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.24 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 72.9% | 55.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 69.2% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.10 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 4.09 on weekdays and 3.44 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 66.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.92 in April to June 2025 to 3.91 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 | 3.91 | 0.63 | 4.09 | 3.44 | 66.5% | 0 of 90 | 75 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.90 | 0.56 | 4.21 | 3.11 | 66.4% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.95 | 0.58 | 4.20 | 3.31 | 71.3% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.92 | 0.56 | 4.18 | 3.27 | 75.5% | 0 of 91 | 72 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Vermont, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.25 | 0.79 | 4.47 | 3.71 | 23.2% | 0.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermont, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.66 | $19.64 to $23.53 | 3,030 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.62 | $29.56 to $37.61 | 1,130 |
| Registered nurses | $46.86 | $39.53 to $50.58 | 7,410 |
| 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 | Vermont | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.3 | 19.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.6 | 5.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.6 | 17.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 5.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.7 | 19.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.8 | 22.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.2 | 17.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Premier Rehab and Healthcare at Berlin's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Vermont: 8 better, 3 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. 102 eligible stays.
8.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Vermont: 1 better, 0 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. 140 eligible stays.
5.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Vermont: 0 better, 0 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. 64 eligible stays.
55.6% this home
Median of homes: Vermont57.4% · 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. 81 residents counted.
2.3% this home
Median of homes: Vermont0.4% · 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. 133 residents counted.
5.9% this home
Median of homes: Vermont2.7% · 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. 133 residents counted.
91.9% this home
Median of homes: Vermont97.6% · 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. 62 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: BERLIN OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Stellar Health Group, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berlin Member LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/18/2024 | |
| Erlichman, Ariel | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 12/18/2024 | |
| Hollerand, Ronald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2024 | |
| Raindel, Yehuda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2024 | |
| Van Dyck, Alexandra | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2024 | |
| Wyner, Moshe | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2024 | |
| Erlichman, Ariel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2024 | |
| Hollerand, Ronald | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/04/2025 | |
| Van Dyck, Alexandra | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/04/2025 |
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.
These are the official offices in Vermont. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.