Home / Massachusetts / East Boston
111 Orient Avenue, East Boston, MA 02128 · Suffolk County · (617) 455-6115
190 certified beds, about 158 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225413 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 5, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 70 health citations since April 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $69,000 in the last three years; the largest was $53,684, and the latest is dated April 23, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.28 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.38 of those hours.
41.5% 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 70 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a Legal Guardian in place who informed the Facility that she was to be contacted for everything, the Facility failed to ensure that staff promptly notified his/her Guardian when he/she requested a social leave of absence from the Facility with a visitor.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident # 1), who upon admission required restricted visitations, the Facility failed to ensure they developed and implemented a comprehensive person-centered care plan with interventions, treatment goals, and outcomes that addressed his/her person-centered safety needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was to be admitted with visitation restrictions, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided care and services that met professional standards of practice regarding his/her admission Process, when nursing staff were unaware of his/her specific need for restricted visitation because the information was not adequately communicated during the admission process, which included nursing not thoroughly reviewing the discharge documentation provided by Hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose primary residence was in a different state, and while in the facility required restricted visitations, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided an adequate level of staff supervision, when on 6/20/26 Resident # 1 was seen by a staff member standing at the nursing station, with nursing staff in the same area, talking to a visitor, a short time later Resident #1 left the Facility with the visitor for a social leave, without signing out in accordance with to the Facility Policy and he/she chose not to return to the Facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), whose Advanced Directives indicated he/she chose to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR, instructs healthcare providers not to do cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if patients breathing stops or their heart stops beating) the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff honored his/her right to self-determination, when after he/she became unresponsive, was not breathing, was found to be without a pulse, and nursing staff initiated CPR.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and #3) who received wound care services by either an Out-Patient Clinic or Facility Contracted Provider, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided care and services that met professional standards of quality related to A) notifying the attending physician of recommendations made by their wound care clinicians and B) adequate monitoring and assessment of the residents wounds by nursing to determine if areas were improving or deteriorating.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and observations for one of three sampled residents (Resident #3) who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of Multi-Drug-Resistant Organisms (MDRO) in nursing homes) related to wound care needs, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff were aware of when to use and implement the necessary infection control practices during the provision of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure grievances were filed and resolved in a timely manner for one Resident (#48) out of a total sample of 30 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive resident centered care plan was developed for one Resident (#118) out of a total sample of 30 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop an individualized comprehensive resident centered care plan related to the monitoring and care of a pacemaker.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility to ensure that services provided met professional standards for one Resident (#10), out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a physician order for weekly skin check and failed to identify bruises for three days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one dependent Resident (#111) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, for Resident #111 the facility failed to provide assistance with the removal of facial hair. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), undated, indicated the following: Policy -The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADL's do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. -Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral hygiene. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#2 and #61) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician orders for air mattress settings.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed for Trauma Informed Care for one Resident (#78) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, for Resident #78, who had a history of trauma, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive trauma care plan, with individualized triggers. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, undated, indicated the following: Policy Statement -It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to properly secure a medication cart on 1 of 5 units (2 West).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain confidential resident information (medication administration information) on 2 of 5 resident units (2 [NAME] and 3 West).
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1), who was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, which included turning, repositioning and incontinence care, the Facility failed to ensure his/her was provided with the necessary level of staff supervision and/or assistance, when on 03/02/25, Resident #1 was positioned onto his/her side during care, the staff member left the room to get supplies, leaving him/her unattended and when staff member returned he/she was found on the floor after falling out of bed. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) where he/she was diagnosed with multiple bone fractures and was admitted for care.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for three of five sampled resident (Resident #2, #4, and #5), the Facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or his/her family member or legal representative participated in the development and implementation of their person-center care plans, when the residents and/or their legal representatives were not invited to attend an interdisciplinary care plan meeting following the completion of their Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1) who had requested bed rails be placed on his/her bed for repositioning and safety reasons, the Facility failed to ensure his/her request was adequately addressed when bed rails were not provided and was told he/she did not need them.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and observation for three of five sampled residents (Resident #3, #4 and #5), who had all been assessed as being their own person, the Facility failed to ensure that 1) Resident #3 was assessed for the use of bed rails and that his/her physicians order was for bed rails, and 2) after Resident #4 and #5 underwent a room change, that the bed rails were provided on their new beds, per their physicians orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #2) whose Physician's Orders included the administration of a narcotic medication for pain, the Facility failed to ensure the resident was free from a significant medication error due to omission, when Resident #2 missed two consecutive doses of scheduled pain medication because nursing staff could not gain access to the facility's Emergency Medication Dispensing System (EMDS, electronic kiosk system that requires a security code to be entered by nursing staff in order to access and dispense stored medications).
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of five sampled residents, (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained complete and accurate medical/clinical records, when documentation on his/her Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Flow Sheets that were to be completed daily by Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's), was often left blank.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Hospital Discharge (DC) Summary indicated he/she had a scheduled appointment with a Urologist in the community for a consult, the Facility failed to ensure nursing provided care and services that met professional standards of quality, when Resident #1 missed the Urology Consult appointment because nursing overlooked the appointment when reviewing his/her Hospital DC Summary, and transportation was never booked.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide behavioral health services for four Resident's (#192, #91 #64, and #73) with a history of suicidal ideation (SI) and/or depression, out of a total universe of 67 residents. Specifically, 1. Resident #192 expressed suicidal ideation and the facility failed to provide the appropriate services, which resulted in staff finding Resident #192 with a tightly tied plastic bag around his/her head during an attempted suicide, 2. the facility failed to provide behavioral health services timely for Resident #91, 3. failed to provide behavioral health services after an increase in depression scores for Resident #64 and #73.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services for one Resident (#192), with a known history of mental disorders, suicidal ideation, and adjustment difficulty. Specifically, the facility failed to develop, implement, and update the plan of care, resulting in an attempted suicide after the vocalization of suicidal ideation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively to attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility administration failed to ensure the appropriate behavioral health services were in place for one Resident (#192) who attempted suicide after verbalizing suicidal ideation. Findings Include: During the survey process it was identified that the Administration's failure to ensure adequate behavioral health services were provided for residents with mental health disorders. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1) prevent a worsening of range of motion with new contracture development for one Resident (#125) and 2) failed to implement interventions for contracture management for one Resident (#16) out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to assure sufficient social services were provided to meet the needs of one Resident (#192), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, Resident #192 did not receive social support after verbalizing suicidal ideation (SI), resulting in an attempted suicide.
Inspectors wroteBased on employee personnel record review and interview, the facility failed to complete annual reviews for five out of five employees reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to designate one or more individuals as the infection preventionist who are responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control plan. Specifically, the facility failed to have a qualified infection preventionist with completed specialized training in infection prevention and control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement the plan of care for 2 Residents (#192 and #62) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to 1. develop a suicidal ideation care plan and 2. develop a care plan for a behavior of chewing on any items in his/her hands which puts him/her at risk for choking.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure agency nursing staff were provided with an orientation to the facility's day-to-day operations including medication administration procedure.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications with short expiration dates were dated when opened, failed to ensure medication carts, cabinets were securely locked when unattended and medications were securely locked, refrigerated medications were stored correctly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1.) maintain airborne precautions for one Resident (#94) who was diagnosed with chicken pox, 2.) conduct site-specific infection control surveillance and risk assessments including surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity in response to active varicella outbreak that required airborne precautions to be implemented, and 3.) failed to report a communicable disease timely to the local and or state health department when a communicable disease was diagnosed on [DATE].
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain one Resident's (#94) dignity by ensuring his/her clothing covered sensitive body parts, out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, specifically, the facility failed to address a chirping fire alarm. Findings Include: During an observation on 6/4/24 at 11:13 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an observation on 6/5/24 at 6:50 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an observation on 6/6/24 at 7:00 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:56 A.M., the Maintenance Director said that he is usually told about any issues in the building via maintenance logbooks that are kept on all nursing units or staff call his direct phone line for any issues. The Maintenance Director said he was not aware or told of the chirping fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER].
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their abuse/neglect policy related to resident to resident abuse for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff reported a resident to resident altercations for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for one Resident (#192) out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the behavioral health care plan for one Resident (#192) after a comprehensive assessment and suicidal ideation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to specifically provide required assistance with activity of daily living for one Resident (#287) out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of hazards for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop and implement interventions addressing Resident #37's behaviors of hoarding hazardous items, such as razors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed maintain professional standards in the managing and care for urinary catheter devices for one Resident (#27), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were not placed directly on the floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#55) who required renal dialysis (a life sustaining treatment that helps your body remove extra fluid and waste products from your blood when the kidneys are not able to) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that clamps exchanging blood between a patient and a hemodialysis machine were at the bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed for trauma-informed care for one Resident (#101), who was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when 2 out of 3 nurses observed made 4 errors out of 28 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 14.29%. Those errors impacted two Residents (#87 and #91), out of four residents observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#87), was free from significant medication errors, out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the nurse prepared to administer double the prescribed dose of the medication metorolol (which is a medication that lowers blood pressure and heart rate).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the correct ordered therapeutic diet for two Residents (#40 and #45) out of a total sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to accurately evaluate their resident population and identify the resources needed to provide the necessary care and services of the resident population related to behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one Resident (#16), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the nurses documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) that they had applied a resting hand splint to Resident #16's left hand when they had not.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible for one Resident (#79) out of a total of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wrote2. For Resident #45, the facility failed to prevent an elopement from the facility. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #45's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and staff had assessed him/her to have moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also indicates the Resident requires limited assistance from staff for activities of daily living. Review of the incident report dated 6/4/22 indicated the following: *On Saturday 6/4/22, at approximately 1:30 P.M., (the Resident) received visitors (spouse) and (daughter). (The Resident) had been out to the nurses' station requesting afternoon medication. (The Resident) was noted to be dressed and had his/her purse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement its abuse policies and procedures as evidenced by 1.) failing to report allegations of abuse to the state agency as required and 2.) failing to investigate allegations of abuse for 4 Residents (#17, #79, #101, discharged Resident (#1) out of a total of 28 Sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to report abuse allegations as required for 4 Residents (#17, #79, #101) and discharged Resident (#1) out of 28 sampled Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to 1.) ensure that food items were accurately labeled and dated to determine an expiration/use by date and 2.) failed to ensure staff followed proper sanitation and food handling during meal service to prevent the potential outbreak of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain consent for the use of psychotropic medications for 1 Resident (#66), out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change of status for 1 Resident (#66), out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent Resident abuse when physical intimate touch occurred between Resident #101 and Resident #17 out of a total of 28 sampled Residents. Resident #101 lacks capacity to consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for 2 Residents (#97, #101) and discharged Resident (#1) out of 28 Sampled Residents Review of the Facility's Abuse, Mistreatment and Neglect policy, undated, indicated: *The Director of Nursing coordinates the investigation of alleged violations. *Nursing or Social Service personnel will conduct interviews with subject (if possible) the accused, potential witnesses and supervisory personnel as needed. *The completed standardized incident form is reviewed for additional data. 1. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, and depression. [...]
Inspectors wrote3. For Resident #98 the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for the risk for aspiration. Resident #98 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/25/23 indicated Resident #98 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15 out of 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS, indicated Resident #98 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, independent with eating with set up, and required a mechanically altered diet. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance during meals for 3 Residents (#41, #63 and #82) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to obtain physician orders for treatment of a skin tear for 1 Resident #76 out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate hearing for 1 Resident (#66) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility, failed to ensure professional standards of practice were adhered to for the care, and prevention of infection for 1 Resident (#321), with a urinary catheter, out of total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to provide correct setting for oxygen administration for 1 Resident (#170) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled 'Oxygen Administration -Simple Mask' undated indicated the following: Policy: To deliver moderate flow oxygen through nose and mouth, per the physician's order (generally 5-10 LPM (liters per minute and 40%- 60% concentration) via simple face mask. Procedure: *Set the oxygen liter flow to the prescribed liter flow per minute Resident #170 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses including asthma, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate pain management for approximately 4 months, which resulted in the increased use of PRN (as needed) pain medication for 1 Resident (#103) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that 1 Resident (#98) was free of unnecessary medication, out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, Resident #98 continued to be administered Aspirin 325 milligrams QD (once a day), after the physician reviewed and agreed with the pharmacist recommendation to change the order to Aspirin to 81 mgs PO (by mouth) daily.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services as needed for 1 Resident (#89) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as ordered by the physician for 1 Resident (#98) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the required transfer/discharge notices to 3 residents, (#3, #71, #98) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interview the facility failed to ensure the bed hold notice was provided for 2 Residents (#98, #71) out of a total sample of 28 residents.
12 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 5, 2025, 1 on June 10, 2024, 4 on April 26, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 23, 2025 | Fine | $15,316 |
| June 10, 2024 | Fine | $53,684 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.28 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.38 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.95 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.5% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.87 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 3.41 on weekdays and 2.95 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.28 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 | 3.28 | 0.38 | 3.41 | 2.95 | 11.0% | 0 of 90 | 158 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.29 | 0.42 | 3.40 | 3.02 | 11.9% | 0 of 92 | 159 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.39 | 3.43 | 2.96 | 7.9% | 0 of 92 | 160 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.43 | 3.48 | 2.97 | 16.0% | 0 of 91 | 159 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.61 | 3.94 | 3.41 | 5.0% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $21.32 to $23.94 | 38,130 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.57 | $34.91 to $40.66 | 13,210 |
| Registered nurses | $50.27 | $42.05 to $65.44 | 88,200 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.0 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.6 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.9 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.7 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.1 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Center at Advocate's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.2% 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. 104 eligible stays.
10.1% 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. 138 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 90 eligible stays.
49.4% 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. 85 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 140 residents counted.
6.4% 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. 141 residents counted.
95.2% 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. 21 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: THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ma 1 Holdco Opco LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Advocate Opco Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Brass Ma Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Bsd Elm Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Ofg Magenta LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Support Opco Descendants Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Tja Hc Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Apfelbaum, Naftali | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Gelbwachs, Gittell | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Rabinowitz, Devorah | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Salzman, David | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Nbh Bank | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Care Network Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Apfelbaum, Naftali | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Neville, Anne | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/05/2025 | |
| 111 Orient Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Asma 1 LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Bh 1 Ma LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Care Network Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Twomagnets LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Apfelbaum, Naftali | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Gelbwachs, Gittell | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Likhi, Rishi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Neville, Anne | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Rabinowitz, Devorah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 |
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.