Home / Massachusetts / Springfield
215 Bicentennial Highway, Springfield, MA 01118 · Hampden County · (413) 796-7511
120 certified beds, about 105 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225392 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 9, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 28 health citations since May 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.72 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
43.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Vantage Care, an affiliated group of 10 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness in the main facility kitchen and on three (Unit #2, #3 and #4) of three unit kitchenettes. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Implement control measures for monthly cleaning of the facility's ice machine located in the main kitchen, and proper storage of the ice scoop, increasing the risks for residents to develop foodborne illnesses and infections.2. ensure that food items were properly stored in the kitchenettes on Unit #2, #3 and #4 and that Unit #2 and Unit #3 kitchenettes were maintained in safe, clean, and sanitary conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records 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 transmission of communicable diseases and infections in the facility main laundry area, and on one unit (Unit #2) out of three resident units. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. Ensure that laundry personnel in the main facility laundry room wore the indicated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE-items such as gowns and gloves worn by staff to decrease the spread of infections) when sorting dirty laundry and linens soiled with feces.2. Ensure that facility staff followed appropriate hand hygiene standards on Unit #2 when: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services in a timely manner, consistent with Residents' needs and choices, to improve the Resident's ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) relative to mobility for one Resident (#10) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to respond to Resident #10's request to be assessed for the use of a walker and the ability to walk when: -The Resident used a wheelchair for mobility. -The Resident reported improved abilities to move his/her legs. -The Resident requested therapy services to address his/her ability to stand and use a walker.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 21 residents was provided assistance with personal hygiene care and services. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #14 was offered and/or provided grooming assistance timely for nail care when the Resident required total dependence of staff for hygiene, bathing, and dressing.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a Physician ordered pain medication was available to be administered for one Resident (#4) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, for Resident #4, the facility failed to ensure that Morphine Sulfate (pain medication) was available to be administered to the Resident every four hours as ordered by the Physician, over six consecutive opportunities, for two consecutive days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored according to professional standards of practice for one unit (4th floor) out of three total units. Specifically, for the 4th floor unit, the facility failed to: -ensure that a controlled substance medication was stored in a safe and secure compartment for controlled substances and/or other drugs subject to abuse inside the medication cart, when an Oxycodone tablet was found in a medication cup during a medication cart observation. -ensure that a controlled substance medication that was refused by a resident was appropriately destroyed and not left unlabeled and accessible in the medication cart with the potential of being diverted or accidentally administered to a resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility to ensure that medical records were complete and accurate for one Resident (#4) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, for Resident #4, the facility staff failed to provide documentation that the Provider was notified when the Resident's Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution was not available to be administered as ordered placing the Resident at risk of not having pain appropriately managed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and records review, the facility failed to refer one Resident (#3) out of a total sample of 21 residents to the PASRR office when the Resident experienced a significant change in status assessment. Specifically, the facility failed to refer Resident #3 to the PASRR office when the Resident:-had a previous negative PASRR screening for serious mental illness (SMI).-expressed a wish to commit suicide.-required modification to his/her care plan relative to his/her suicidal statement.-required antipsychotic medication that was previously discontinued to be re-ordered and administered following his/her suicidal statement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility staff failed to maintain a clean, orderly, homelike environment on one unit (Unit Four) out of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the air conditioning (AC) vent located on the ceiling, and the ceiling tiles surrounding the vent in the hallway outside of the resident rooms were maintained in good repair and a clean, homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the required transfer documentation was completed and the transfer documentation communicated the appropriate information to the receiving health care institution for one Resident (#13), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #13 was transferred to the emergency room with a form that included important information relative to the Resident's medical history and the reason for transfer, putting the Resident at risk for complications and adverse events upon transfer to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the risks and benefits of bed rails was reviewed with the Resident and/or Resident Representative and informed written consent was obtained prior to the use of bed rails for one Resident (#15) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, for Resident #15, the facility failed to ensure the risks and benefits of bed rails was reviewed with Resident #15's Guardian (a court appointed person who makes important personal and healthcare decisions for an adult who lacks the capacity to make their own decisions) and written consent was obtained from the Guardian prior to the installation and use of bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one Resident (#15) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, for Resident #15, the facility failed to contact the Resident's Guardian (a court appointed person who makes important personal and healthcare decisions for an adult who lacks the capacity to make their own decisions) and ensure that the Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST- form that indicates what types of medical treatment a resident wishes to have concerning life-sustaining treatment) form was signed by the Guardian and not by the Resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was accurately coded for one Resident (#39) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, for Resident #39, the facility staff failed to accurately code that the Resident had falls on the most recent Quarterly MDS Assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff completed a Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment within the required time frames for eleven Residents (#141, #142, #145. #190, #191, #14, #18, #24, #30, #36, and #59) out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, 1. for Residents #141, #142, #145, #190, and #191 the facility failed to ensure its staff completed admission MDS Assessments within the required 14 days of admission to the facility and 2. For Residents #14, #18, #30 #36, and #59 the facility failed to ensure its staff completed an Annual MDS Assessment at least every 12 months. 1. For Residents #141, #142, #145, #190, and #191 the facility failed to complete an admission MDS Assessment within 14 days of Admission a. Resident #141 was admitted to the facility 3/22/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure its staff completed quarterly review Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for 22 Residents (#3, #4, #6, #10, #16, #20, #25, #34, #37, #39, #42, #53, #55, #57, #60, #68, #71, #79, #81, #82, #83, and #84) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual indicated the Quarterly MDS Assessment must be completed no later than 14 calendar days after the Assessment Reference Date (ARD-refers to the last day of the observation period that the assessment covers for the resident). 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in July 2016. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/22/23 indicated it had not been completed within 14 days of the ARD. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided meals that were palatable, and of appropriate temperatures on three (Second Floor, Third Floor, and Fourth Floor) out of three Units observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff: 1. provided a written Notice of Transfer and Discharge to the resident and/or residents representative at the time of discharge and 2. failed to notify a representative in the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman when a resident was transferred from the facility for six Residents (#241, #13, #29, #85, #61, and #70) out of a total of 22 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided written notification of the Bed-Hold policy to the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative for four Residents (#61, #70, #241 and #85) who were transferred to the hospital, out of a total sample of 22 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff completed and/or transmitted discharge information for five Residents (#13, #29, #60, and #241) out of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wrote2. For Resident #60 the facility failed to ensure its staff developed a comprehensive, individualized, person-centered care plan relative to the Resident's psychosocial well-being. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses including anxiety and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Review of the medical record indicated no documented evidence that a psychosocial assessment was completed upon admission or anytime thereafter. PCC indicated that a Psychosocial History and Assessment was 211 days overdue. Additionally, the medical record indicated no documented evidence that an individualized, person-centered care plan had been developed relative to psychosocial well-being, that included mood or Adjustment Disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff completed the necessary comprehensive Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set assessment (SCSA MDS) for one Resident (#13) out of a total of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff completed a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR-evaluation done if it was determined by the Level I screen that a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability and/or serious mental illness and if resident was in need of additional support services at the facility) for one Resident 2 (#2) out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, For Resident #2, facility staff failed to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when the Resident exceeded their 30-day convalescent care stay (time frame certified by a doctor indicating the Resident's stay will not exceed 30 days at the facility).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff included two Residents (#29 and #191) and/or their representatives out of 22 sampled residents in the care planning process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided activities designed to support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for two Residents (#29 and#24) out of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services for a BiPAP (Bi-level positive airway pressure machine capable of generating two adjustable pressure levels used for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and other breathing disorders to provide a person with continuous positive airway pressure) machine for one Resident (#241) out of 22 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff completed a Trauma-Informed Care screening at the time of admission or after it was identified one Resident (#2) who had a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD-a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event) out of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff documented if Resident's had consented to and received pneumococcal immunization or had received pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal for two Residents (#76 and #190) out of 5 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff implemented the facility smoking policy for one Resident (#142) out of a total of 22 residents sampled. Specifically, the facility staff failed to 1. obtain a Physician's Order allowing Resident #143 to smoke, and 2. maintain a safe smoking environment by ensuring a fire blanket was available in the smoking area.
7 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 9, 2025, 4 on August 22, 2024, 1 on May 4, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.72 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.47 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.14 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.1% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.48 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 3.82 on weekdays and 3.47 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.78 in April to June 2025 to 3.72 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 | 3.72 | 0.33 | 3.82 | 3.47 | 7.4% | 0 of 90 | 105 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.08 | 0.35 | 4.22 | 3.71 | 11.5% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.94 | 0.33 | 4.06 | 3.63 | 16.1% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.78 | 0.25 | 3.91 | 3.44 | 12.7% | 0 of 91 | 109 |
| 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 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.2 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sixteen Acres Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.2% 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. 117 eligible stays.
11.6% 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. 128 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 68 eligible stays.
52.1% 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. 48 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. 61 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 61 residents counted.
90.3% 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. 31 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: SIXTEEN ACRES HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Vantage Care, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arem, Cheryl | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 12/29/2025 |
| Brown, Yossi | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 12/29/2025 |
| Herskovitz, Miriam | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 12/29/2025 |
| Yurowitz, Sam | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 12/29/2025 |
| Brown, Yossi | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Johnson, Jeri | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Brown, Yossi | Corporate director | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Corporate director | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Brown, Yossi | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Innovations Healthcare, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/29/2025 | |
| Brown, Yossi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Butt, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Coughlin, Leanne | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Green, Morris | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Johnson, Jeri | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Kazi, Fahim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Lecours, Darryl | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Innovations Healthcare, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/30/2026 | |
| Brown, Yossi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Butt, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Coughlin, Leanne | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Green, Morris | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Johnson, Jeri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Kazi, Fahim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Lecours, Darryl | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/29/2025 |
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.