Home / Massachusetts / South Hadley
573 Granby Rd, South Hadley, MA 01075 · Hampshire County · (413) 532-2200
132 certified beds, about 119 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 2001
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225757 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 27, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 56 health citations since November 2022 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 3.34 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
51.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
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 56 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2) who resided in the facility with a service/emotional support dog, the facility failed to ensure they developed and implemented an individualized comprehensive person-centered care plan that included interventions, goals and outcomes related to the safety, psychosocial wellbeing and associated care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3) the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice when nursing staff failed to: 1) provide on-going wound assessment and treatment to Resident #1 who had sustained an injury from a dog, and 2) provide wound treatment to Resident #3 as recommended by the Wound Care Consultant.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident beds were routinely inspected to identify areas of possible entrapment on three of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that resident bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails, were inspected annually as part of a routine maintenance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. Review the facility's IPCP standards, policies and procedures annually, placing residents and staff at risk for outdated standards of practice for preventing and controlling infections. 2. Develop, monitor, and implement the resident vaccination process within the facility relative to Influenza, Pneumococcal and Covid, placing residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments that reflected the residents status as of the Assessment Reference Date for five Resident's (#80, #33, #68, #90 and #91), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #80, the facility staff failed to code the MDS assessment accurately relative to a pressure ulcer under Section M. 2. For Resident #33, the facility failed to complete the Pain Assessment under Section J with the Resident involvement, when the Resident had clear speech, was able to make him/herself understood, and understood others. 3. For Resident #68, the facility failed to accurately code skin conditions under Section M on the comprehensive MDS Assessment relative to surgical, diabetic and vascular wounds that were present. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice relative to podiatry services and skin assessment for one Resident (#110), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, for Resident #110, the facility failed to: -implement podiatry recommendations when the Resident received podiatry care and services and was recommended to have continued wound treatment to the right great toe. -perform a weekly skin assessment as ordered, putting the Resident at risk for infection and delayed wound healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent and treat a pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device) for one Resident (#40), of six applicable residents reviewed for pressure, out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to evaluate and monitor a pressure ulcer located on Resident #40's left ischium (left lower back of the hip bone) to help identify any wound changes, promote healing and prevent deterioration of the wound, infection, and new ulcers from developing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#2), of four applicable residents reviewed with feeding tubes, in a total sample of 28 residents, had care and services in place for enteral feedings and gastrostomy site care. Specifically, for Resident #2, the facility failed to ensure Physician's orders were implemented and/or that orders were in place relative to enteral feeding (refers to any method of feeding that uses the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver nutrition and calories) care including: -Gastrostomy (G-tube: surgical procedure for inserting a tube through the abdomen wall and into the stomach to administer medications, fluids and nutrition) site care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess for continued use of a prophylactic antibiotic, for one Resident (#63), of two applicable residents reviewed for antibiotic use, out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, for Resident #63, the facility failed to: -ensure the Physician orders for the Infectious Disease (ID) and Endocrinology Consults were implemented as required. -coordinate ID and Endocrinology appointments to assess for the need/rationale for continued use of a prophylactic antibiotic (Ciprofloxacin) prescribed for chronic osteomyelitis, when the Resident requested to discontinue the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#90 and #181), out of a total of 28 sampled Residents, received laboratory services as ordered by the Physician. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #90, obtain weekly Complete Blood Count (CBC) and Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) labwork as ordered by the Physician. 2. For Resident #181, obtained Complete Blood Count (CBC) and Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) labwork as ordered by the Physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure completed and accurate medical records were maintained for three Residents (#15, #91 and #2), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #15, the facility failed to ensure that staff documented daily fluid intakes when Resident #15 was on a fluid restriction. 2. For Resident #91, the facility failed to ensure a dosage for Sodium Bicarbonate was included in the Physician's orders to ensure accurate administration of the medication when the Resident was being administered the medication without an ordered dosage. 3. For Resident #2, the facility failed to ensure accurate routes for medication administration were documented when the Resident was unsafe to receive medication/food/fluid by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pneumococcal vaccination history was maintained and/or that the Pneumococcal Vaccine was administered after consent was obtained to administer the vaccinations for three Residents (#15, #114, and #2), out of six applicable residents for immunizations. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #15, the Pneumococcal Vaccine was administered after the Resident consented to receive the updated Pneumococcal vaccinations as needed. 2. For Resident #114, the Pneumococcal Vaccine was administered after the Resident's Representative consented for the Resident to receive the updated Pneumococcal vaccinations as needed. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a COVID-19 vaccination policy for three Residents (#15, #114, and #2), out of a total of six applicable residents for immunization review. Specifically the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #15, that documentation was maintained relative to COVID-19 vaccination history, and that the most up-to-date COVID-19 Vaccine was administered when the Resident consented to receive it. 2. For Resident #114, that documentation was maintained relative COVID-19 vaccination history, and that the most up-to-date COVID-19 vaccine was provided when the Resident's Representative consented for the Resident to receive the most up-to-date COVID-19 Vaccines as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs, and biologicals used in the facility in a secure manner, on three Units (East One, [NAME] Two, and East Two) of three units observed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure 1. on East One, one medication cart was locked when not in direct supervision of a licensed nurse, 2. on [NAME] Two, one medication cart and one treatment cart were locked when not in direct supervision of a licensed nurse, and 3. on East Two one medication cart was locked when not in direct supervision of a licensed nurse.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, the Facility, (who had an in-house census of 118 residents) failed to ensure the Director of Nurses (DON) did not serve as a charge nurse on a unit, when their daily occupancy rate was greater than 60 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policies reviewed, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards and the facility's policies for: 1. Food storage, preparation and service, and cleanliness of food preparation equipment in the facility's main kitchen, placing residents at risk for foodborne illness; and 2. Food storage, food equipment cleanliness, and reheating of resident food items in one Unit (West 2) Kitchenette out of three-unit kitchenettes observed. Specifically, the facility failed to: - Serve thoroughly cooked eggs at one breakfast meal when the eggs were not pasteurized. - Maintain cold food storage according to professional standards in the walk-in refrigerator. - Maintain food preparation equipment in a sanitary manner. - Maintain unit nourishment kitchens in a sanitary manner. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records and policies reviewed, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and choices for one Resident (#17), out of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: a. Provide seating, adequate for the Resident's condition, when the Resident was non-ambulatory (unable to walk) and required assistance from staff to get out of bed, increasing the Resident's for further physical debility and social isolation. b. Maintain an accurate record of the Resident's fluid intake and urinary output when the Resident's Physician ordered fluid intake and output monitoring and the Resident had a history of fluid overload (too much fluid in one's body that can cause swelling, high blood pressure, and impact organ function). c. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and records and policies reviewed, the facility failed to support the right for one Resident (#17), to participate in his/her care planning process, in a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to include Resident #17 in the interdisciplinary team (IDT) care plan review process when the Resident was his/her own responsible person, had a preference to be in bed, and the IDT met in a location not in the Resident's room to review Resident #17's plan of care, which impacted the Resident's ability to make choices about his/her plan of care and treatment interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs for three Residents (#174, #30, and #67), out of 25 total residents sampled. Specifically, the facility failed to provide: 1. Resident #174 with a working call light or an alternative means to call for assistance; 2. Resident #30 with a wheelchair that accommodated the Resident's needs; and 3. Resident #67 with a seat cushion and leg rests for his/her wheelchair.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to execute Advance Directives (written documents that instructs health care providers of the decisions for specific medical treatment if a person was unable to speak or lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves) for one Resident (#115), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, for Resident #115, the facility failed to ensure that Advanced Directives on a completed (prior to facility admission) Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form were honored per the Resident's wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff notified the provider as ordered when test results were outside of the parameters set by the provider, for one Resident (#75), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the provider when Resident #75's blood sugar reading was greater than 400.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the required transfer documentation was completed and communicated the appropriate information to the receiving health care institution for one Resident (#50), out of a total sample of 25 residents, putting the Resident at risk for complications and adverse events upon transfer to the receiving facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Comprehensive Assessment for one Resident (#174), out of a total of 25 residents sampled. Specifically, for Resident #174, the facility failed to complete the admission Comprehensive Assessment no later than day 14 after the Resident was admitted to the facility to assist in planning and providing appropriate care to attain or maintain the highest practicable level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans according to Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Care Area Assessments (CAAs) for three Residents (#53, #63, and #50), out of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Develop a care plan for Resident #53 relative to rejection of care when behaviors for refusal of care were triggered on the Resident's MDS Assessment's CAA for Behavior, facility staff indicated a care plan for rejection of care was to be developed, and the Resident continued to reject care. 2. Develop a care plan for Resident #63 relative to vision when vision impairments were triggered on the Resident's MDS Assessment's CAA for Vision and facility staff indicated a care plan was to be developed. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan, in accordance with the facility's policy, for one Resident (#48), out of 25 total residents sampled. Specifically, the facility failed to revise Resident #48's comprehensive care plan following completion of a comprehensive assessment, which increased the Resident's risk for improper delivery of care related to changing goals, preferences, and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADLs) to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one Resident (#88) who was unable to carry out ADLs independently, out of a total of 25 residents sampled. Specifically, the facility failed to provide Resident #88 with grooming needs relative to facial hair and nail care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for one Resident (#48) who required the use of Oxygen, out of 25 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain Resident #48's oxygen delivery equipment in a sanitary manner when: a. The concentrator's filter cover was covered with dust, while the Resident used Oxygen via a nasal cannula (plastic device inserted into one's nose to assist in delivering Oxygen) attached to the concentrator, increasing risk for sub-optimal air flow and compromised health. b. The top and front of the concentrator had areas of dust and dried, spattered debris while the Resident used Oxygen via nasal cannula which was attached to the concentrator, increasing risk for compromised health. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and test tray results, the facility failed to serve palatable food, at an appetizing temperature, to all residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Serve palatable food, relative to texture, to residents on the East One Unit for one breakfast meal. 2. Serve food to residents on the [NAME] Two Unit that was palatable, relative to taste and texture, and hot when the food was meant to be served hot.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, policies, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure staff adhered to infection control standards for residents on Transmission-based Precautions (TBP), to mitigate the spread of infection, for one Resident (#77), out of three applicable sampled residents, out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff wore the required personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to a Resident on Droplet precautions (a precaution used to prevent the spread of pathogens that are passed through respiratory secretions such as when coughing or sneezing) for Influenza infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff maintained wheelchair equipment in safe operating condition for one Resident (#67), out of a total of 25 sampled residents. Specifically, for Resident #67, the facility failed to identify that the left side panel was missing from the wheelchair creating a large gap on the left side of the wheelchair where the Resident's left arm could slip through and be caught in the wheel spoke.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Resident and/or Resident Representative was notified in writing of a transfer or discharge and that a representative in the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman was also notified for four Residents (#87, #76, #48, and #121), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #87, that the Resident and/or Resident Representative was notified in writing, and the reason given for a transfer or discharge; 2. For Resident #76, that the Resident and/or Resident Representative was notified in writing, and the reason given for a transfer or discharge, and that the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman was notified of the transfer/discharge; 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Bed-Hold Policy at the time of transfer to a hospital or shortly thereafter for three Residents (#87, #76, and #48), who were expected to return to the facility, and/or their Representatives, out of a total sample of 25 residents.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (a condition in people who lack bladder control due to a brain, spinal cord, or nerve problem) and artificial openings of urinary tract status. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 3/23/24, indicated the following: -Urostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an artificial opening for the urinary system) care every shift, date initiated, 11/22/23. -Inspect the condition of the skin around the urostomy stoma (a surgically created artificial opening) for any irritation or breakdown every shift, if present, notify the supervisor and Physician immediately, date initiated 11/22/23. Review of the MDS assessments, dated 12/5/23 and 2/28/24, under Section H- Bladder and Bowel, did not indicate the Resident had an urostomy. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews and observations, for one of three nursing units, (East 1 Unit) the Facility failed to ensure staff consistently adhered to infection control guidelines and Facility policies related to the prevention of contamination and spread of infection, specifically related to ensuring staff were wearing the required personal protective equipment (PPE) when interacting with COVID-19 positive residents, along with ensuring appropriate handling and disposal of contaminated linens and PPE.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), who was re-admitted to the Facility with a pressure injury to his/her coccyx (lower back area) and was assessed by nursing as being at moderate risk for skin breakdown, the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice related to the promotion of healing or the prevention of worsening of his/her wound, when the wound was not assessed on admission by nursing, treatment orders were not obtained from the physician until 10 days after admission, as well as there being no documentation of continued monitoring for the improvement or potential worsening of his/her pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff promptly acted upon and responded to concerns that were brought up during the scheduled Resident Council Meetings about life and resident care at the facility.
Inspectors wrote3. For Resident #70 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident or the Resident's Representative was involved in developing the care plan and/or making decisions about his/her care. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility in April 2021. Review of the MDS dated [DATE], indicated a BIMS score of 15/15, indicating Resident #70 was cognitively intact. Review of the care plan calendar, provided by the facility staff indicated that the Resident was scheduled to have a care plan meeting on 11/11/22. Review of the Resident's clinical record indicated no evidence that the Resident or Resident's Representative had been invited, participated, or declined to attend a care plan meeting. During an interview on 11/15/22 at 2:49 P.M., Resident #70 said that he/she has never participated in a care plan meeting. He/she believed there was one recently, however said it never took place. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided an environment free from accidents and hazards. Specifically, they failed to ensure: A) safety relative to smoking for two Residents (#62 and #70), out of a sample of 27 residents, and B) medications were safely stored on one out of three units observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided necessary care and services for the use of respiratory equipment for four Residents (#75, #47, #49 and #36), out of a sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility staff: 1) failed to obtain a Physician order for BiPAP therapy, sanitize and replace respiratory accessory equipment for Resident #75. 2) failed to obtain a Physician order for supplemental Oxygen for Resident #47. 3) failed to provide appropriate signage of Oxygen use and care of oxygen equipment to prevent the spread of infection for Resident # 49, and 4) failed to obtain a Physician order for Oxygen and apply CPAP as ordered for Resident #36.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained a complete and accurate medical record for ten Residents (#20, #47, #110, #11, #28, #35, #39, #92, #8 and #111), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1) ensure its staff followed the facility protocol relative to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use. Specifically, the wearing of facemasks while on the resident care floors, and 2) implement their infection surveillance plan relative to COVID-19 screening, for five out of eight employees reviewed, in an effort to stop the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#20 and #110), out of a total sample of three residents, had Physician Orders for COVID-19 testing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided reasonable accommodation of needs for one Resident (#113), out of 27 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility's staff failed to ensure that a call bell was within reach for the Resident's use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff notified the Physician about a change in one Resident (#47)'s medical condition, out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained resident privacy on one of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident specific medical information was kept private and confidential when other residents were present.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided required discharge notices for two Residents (#111 and #36) and/or their representatives, out of 27 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided Notices of Bed Hold Policy and Return for two Residents (#111 and #36), out of 27 sampled residents as required by facility policy. Review of the facility policy titled, Bed Holds and Returns, revised May 2022, included the following: - Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, Residents or Resident Representatives will be informed in writing of the Bed Hold and Return policy. - Prior to a transfer, written information will be given to the Residents and the Resident Representatives that explains in detail: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately completed comprehensive assessments for two Residents (#50 and #78), out of 27 sampled residents, that included cognitive, mood, and behaviors patterns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed and implemented the plan of care for three Residents (#12, #53 and #50), out of 27 sampled Residents. Specifically, 1)the facility staff failed to provide compression ace wraps and/or TED stockings (stockings that promote increased blood flow in the legs and reduce the risk of blood clots) for one Resident (#12), 2) failed to arrange surgical follow-up for tracheostomy closure for one Resident (#53), and 3) failed to assess elopement risk for one Resident (#50).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications in a way that met professional standards of practices for one Resident (#39), out of 27 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Nurse failed to provide crushed medication in a way to ensure the Resident consumed all the medication. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Preparation and General Guidelines, effective date January 1, 2021 indicated the following: -Tablet Crushing/Capsule Opening: Crushing tablets .For medications crushed for oral administration and placed in food, the entire content of the food must be consumed to assure the entire dose of medication has been consumed also . Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in October 2020 with a diagnosis of unspecified Dementia with behavioral disturbance. During an observation on 11/15/22 at 8:17 A. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided assistance with grooming and personal hygiene for three Residents (#31, #70, and #373), out of 27 sampled Residents. Specifically, 1) failing to provide nail care for Resident #31, and 2) showers for Resident's #70 and #373. 1. For Resident #31 the facility failed to ensure its staff assisted with his/her fingernail care. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in September 2022. Review of the Resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/4/22 indicated the Resident's cognition was moderately impaired as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15. Further review of the MDS Assessment indicated the Resident required the extensive assistance of one person with his/her personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the appropriate care and services related to a urinary catheter (also referred to as a Foley - a tube placed into the bladder to drain urine) for one Resident (#111), out of 27 sampled residents. Specifically, 1) staff failed to ensure appropriate Physician orders were in place, and 2) failed to appropriately maintain the urinary catheter to prevent contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided appropriate care and services for one Resident (#113,) with a Gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medication), out of 28 sampled Residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to provide care of the G-tube site.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility and its staff failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis (a blood purifying treatment given when kidney function is not optimum) received care and services consistent with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#11), out of a sample of 27 residents. Specifically, failure to ensure: A) development of a baseline care plan that included Physician orders relative to dialysis, and B) complete and accurate documentation/communication with the dialysis facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff assisted in acquiring dental services for one Resident (#35), out of a total of 27 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility administrator failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee was composed of the required members. Specifically, there was no evidence the Medical Director or his/her designee had attended two quarely meetings, 1/31/22 and 7/21/22 out of four quarterly QAPI meetings. Review of the facility QAPI plan dated September 2022, indicated the committee consisted of the Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nursing, QAPI/Compliance Director, department managers, and nursing assistants. Review of the attendance sheet for the quarterly QAPI meeting held on 1/31/22 showed there was no evidence the Medical Director or his/her designee participated in the meeting. [...]
21 fire safety citations on file: 12 on May 27, 2025, 5 on March 27, 2024, 4 on November 22, 2022.
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) | 3.34 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.06 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.9% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 51.9% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.45 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 3.45 on weekdays and 3.06 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.34 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 | 3.34 | 0.50 | 3.45 | 3.06 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 119 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.45 | 0.47 | 3.57 | 3.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 118 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.39 | 0.50 | 3.52 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.51 | 3.41 | 2.93 | 4.9% | 0 of 91 | 116 |
| 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 | 20.6 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.9 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.9 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.4 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.1 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for South Hadley Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.5% 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. 105 eligible stays.
11.9% 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. 137 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 73 eligible stays.
33.3% 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. 54 residents counted.
4.1% 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. 73 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 73 residents counted.
88.5% 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. 26 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.