Home / Massachusetts / Wrentham
655 Dedham St., Wrentham, MA 02093 · Norfolk County · (508) 384-3400
44 certified beds, about 36 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225752 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 3, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 38 health citations since May 2024 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.04 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.40 of those hours.
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 38 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition. Specifically, the facility failed to promptly repair or replace a broken dish machine.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the resident representative had information in advance to exercise their rights for two Residents (#24 and #30), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:1. For Resident #24, a [NAME] Treatment Plan (court approved treatment plan for the administration of antipsychotic medications) was active and current for administration of an antipsychotic medication; and2. For Resident #30, the Health Care Proxy (HCP: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided care and services consistent with accepted standards of clinical practice for four Residents (#2, #4, #8 and #32), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:1. For Resident #2,a. care and treatment to the Resident's implanted cardiac pacemaker met professional standards of care;b. a physician's order for the use of an air mattress, including settings, was obtained prior to its use; and 2. For Resident #4, a physician's order for the use of an air mattress, including settings, was obtained prior to its use;3. For Resident #8, a physician's order for the use of an air mattress, including settings, was obtained prior to its use;4. For Resident #32, care and treatment to the Resident's implanted cardiac pacemaker met professional standards of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an environment free of accident hazards. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a resident care area was free from a portable radiator (space heater), a burn/fire hazard risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on employee record review and interview, the facility failed to complete performance reviews of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of these reviews for five out of five CNAs' (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) employee records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed, and interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Maintain an accurate surveillance system that reflected potential illnesses and infections in the facility; and2. Ensure resident hand hygiene was implemented during meal service.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to provide education and/or offer the COVID-19 vaccination as required or appropriate per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for five of five employee records reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a new assessment of the bed, side rails and mattresses in active use for potential entrapment when the bed mattress was changed from the previously assessed mattress, placing two Residents (#2 and #8), out of a sample of 12 residents, who had limited mobility and utilized bilateral side rails, at risk for possible entrapment.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement their facility assessment (a document assessing the capability of the facility and its resources to provide both emergency and day-to-day care of the population the facility currently serves). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure active involvement of all required members when conducting the facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Comprehensive Care Plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments, for three Residents (#2, #4, and #16), out of a sample of 12 residents.
Inspectors wrote3. On 4/25/25 at 8:49 A.M., the surveyor entered the open door of the clean utility room in the nursing unit hallway. Inside the room were two unlocked cabinets with several items noted inside including: -11 bottles of Antifungal powder with Miconazole Nitrate 2% -28 tubes of moisture barrier antifungal cream mupirocin ointment 2% -9 bottles of DermaCream During an interview on 4/29/25 at 1:29 P.M., the Director of Nursing said the clean utility room has a keypad lock on it and the door should be closed and locked at all times to prevent residents from accessing the hazardous items inside. 4. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in December 2024 with a stage four pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin loss that extends through the fascia with considerable tissue loss due to prolonged pressure exerted over specific areas of the body). On 4/25/25 at 8:54 A.M., 9:07 A.M., 11:12 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a new assessment of the bed, side rails and mattresses in active use for potential entrapment when the bed mattress was changed from the previously assessed mattress, placing two Residents (#22 and #34), out of a sample of 12 residents, who had limited mobility and utilized bilateral side rails, at risk for possible entrapment. Following an interview with the facility's Maintenance Director, it was determined that 38 of 38 beds in use in the facility were affected.
Inspectors wroteBased on a resident group meeting, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure concerns from the Resident Council were thoroughly documented to ensure the residents felt their concerns were acted upon timely and included the facility response to the group.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observations, the facility failed to ensure grievance forms were available in resident care and public areas, so residents and/or visitors were able to access forms without requesting staff assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for six Residents (#10, #15, #8, #29, #12, and #37), of 13 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed, consistently implemented, and revised as needed. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #10, a. to develop and implement a care plan intervention after he/she sustained a fall, and b. to implement the Resident's falls care plan for a floor mat while in bed at all times; 2. For Resident #15, a. to identify non-pharmacological interventions for the use of an antipsychotic medication; and, b. to develop a comprehensive care plan related to hospice services; 3. For Resident #8, to develop a comprehensive care plan related to anticoagulation use; 4. For Resident #29, to develop a comprehensive care plan related to bladder preferences; 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team for four Residents (#12, #22, #37, and #15), out of a total sample of 13 residents . Specifically, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan after comprehensive, significant change, and quarterly assessments were completed to reflect the current status of the Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for three Residents (#10, #22, and #34), of 13 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure care was provided to residents in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #10, to ensure a physician's order was obtained prior to sending him/her to the hospital; 2. For Resident #22, to ensure a physician's order for the use of an air mattress, including settings, was obtained prior to its use; and 3. For Resident #34, to ensure a physician's order for the use of an air mattress, including settings, was obtained prior to its use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a person-centered plan of care with individualized interventions for trauma-informed care was developed for two Residents (#29 and #22), out of a total sample of 13 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess and implement care plan interventions for: 1. Resident #29 with a history of a traumatic and violent event; and 2. Resident #22 with a history of traumatic events.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services for one Resident (#29), with a history of a traumatic and violent life event, out of a total sample of 13 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to make a referral to Behavioral Health Services upon admission resulting in a 46-day delay of services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections while the facility was experiencing a Group A streptococcal (GAS - bacteria that can cause various infections, ranging from mild sore throat to severe invasive diseases) outbreak. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff utilized appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering in and out of resident rooms who were on transmission-based precautions for GAS; 2. Maintain an accurate surveillance system that reflected potential illnesses and infections in the facility; and 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to provide education and offer COVID-19 vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for four Staff members out of a total sample of five staff reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three Residents (#8, #2, #10), out of a total sample of 13 residents, were treated with respect and dignity. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #8's Foley catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) drainage bag was covered with a privacy shield and/or positioned away from the doorway; 2. Resident #2's catheter drainage bag was consistently placed in a privacy bag; and 3. Resident #10 was provided a dignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) were communicated to the physician and addressed in a timely manner for two Residents (#15 and #37), out of a total sample of 13 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #15, to ensure October 2024 consultant pharmacist recommendations for nursing to perform an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment (a clinical outcome checklist completed by a healthcare provider to assess the presence and severity of adverse outcomes, such as abnormal movements of the face, limbs, and body) were acted upon timely; and 2. For Resident #37, to ensure October 2024 consultant pharmacist recommendation for nursing to perform an AIMS assessment was acted upon timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#37 and #15), out of a total sample of 13 residents, that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications to promote or maintain the Residents' highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #37, that targeted behaviors and signs and symptoms of potential adverse consequences were monitored for the use of the antipsychotic medication Seroquel; and 2. For Resident #15, to ensure a rationale for use of Seroquel was documented and a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted, unless documented by the prescriber as clinically contraindicated in the medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain safe and clean equipment, in one of one kitchenette.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program which included antibiotic use protocols in accordance with the facility's antibiotic stewardship program for two Residents (#1 and #2), out of a total sample of 13 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#34 and #27), out of a total sample of five residents reviewed for immunizations, was screened for eligibility to receive the recommended pneumococcal vaccinations, residents/residents' representatives were educated on the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccine, and was offered and administered (if applicable) the vaccine in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's licensed nurse staff schedules, employee punch cards, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. Specifically, the facility failed to provide at least eight consecutive hours of RN services in the facility over a 24-hour period for 13 days between 3/30/24 and 5/12/24, when no nurse staffing waivers were in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for three Residents (#24, #1, and #23), of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #24, ensure weekly skin risk assessments were conducted per facility policy and physician's orders; 2. For Resident #26, implement Wound Consultant recommendations; and 3. For Resident #23, to initiate an order for Remeron (antidepressant).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, for four Residents (#20, #26, #31, and #1), of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities): 1. For Resident #20, who has an indwelling suprapubic urinary catheter, putting him/her at increased risk for infection; 2. For Resident #26, who has a chronic wound and indwelling urinary catheter, putting him/her at increased risk for infection; 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, for five Residents (#15, #18, #20, #26, and #33), of six residents reviewed, the facility failed to provide the pneumococcal vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations and facility policy. Specifically, for Residents #15, #18, #20, #26, and #33, the facility failed to ensure that pneumococcal vaccinations were administered after consent was obtained.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, for one Resident (#1), out of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to notify Resident #1's Responsible Party of a potential need to alter treatment. Specifically, the facility failed to notify Resident #1's Guardian about the start of a new medication and failed to obtain a Guardian Consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, policy review, and records reviewed, for three Residents (#11, #23, and #139), out of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans to reflect the individual needs of the residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #11, to develop a care plan for the use of psychotropic medication including antipsychotic and antidepressant medications; and 2. For Resident #23, to develop a care plan for the use of psychotropic medication including antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications; and 3. For Resident #139, to develop a care plan for the use of psychotropic medication including antipsychotic and antidepressant medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#1), out of a total sample of 12 residents, that the Resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an antibiotic was administered for the appropriate duration.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, for two Residents (#139 and #11), of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #139, -to ensure an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS, a clinical outcome checklist completed by a healthcare provider to assess the presence and severity of adverse outcomes, such as abnormal movements of the face, limbs, and body in patients) assessment was completed, and -to ensure an as needed antipsychotic medication was limited to 14 days as required; and 2. For Resident #11, to ensure an AIMS assessment was completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#26), out of a total sample of 12 residents, that all medications/treatments were properly labeled, stored, and secured to ensure safe administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, for one Resident (#1), out of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices. Specifically, for Resident #1, the facility failed to ensure his/her skin checks were documented in the medical record as ordered by the physician.
38 fire safety citations on file: 7 on March 3, 2026, 11 on April 29, 2025, 20 on May 14, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.04 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.40 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.87 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.60 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.04 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.24 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 4.11 on weekdays and 3.87 on weekends, 6% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.14 in April to June 2025 to 4.04 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.04 | 0.40 | 4.11 | 3.87 | 3.0% | 1 of 90 | 36 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.40 | 4.26 | 3.54 | 3.0% | 0 of 92 | 35 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.14 | 0.56 | 4.39 | 3.53 | 16.2% | 1 of 91 | 36 |
| 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 | 24.5 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 37.2 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Serenity Hill Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 19 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 32 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 eligible stays.
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: 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. 10 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: 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. 11 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: 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. 11 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. 1 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: LONG TERM CENTERS OF WRENTHAM, INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweeney, Matthew | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2005 | |
| Woods, Thomas | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/01/2005 | |
| Sweeney, Matthew | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2005 | |
| Woods, Thomas | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/30/1999 | |
| Sweeney, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2005 |
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.