Home / Massachusetts / Brockton
888 North Main Street, Brockton, MA 02301 · Plymouth County · (508) 587-6556
123 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225382 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 30, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 62 health citations since November 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.29 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.80 of those hours.
41.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Best Care Services, 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 62 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had an activated Health Care Proxy (HCP), the Facility failed to ensure that nursing staff promptly notified his/her Health Care Agent (HCA) when he/she experienced a significant change in status, related to the development of Moisture-Associated Skin Damage (MASD) to his/her buttocks.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), who had an invoked Health Care Proxy (HCP), the Facility failed to ensure that nursing staff promptly notified his/her Health Care Agent (HCA) when he/she experienced a significant change in status with a decline in condition, related to the development of deep tissue injuries (DTI, damage of soft tissue beneath intact skin) to his/her heels.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained complete and accurate medical/clinical records, including but not limited to the documentation of notification to a Health Care Agent (HCA) of newly observed pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to track and analyze data, including the progress and outcome of projects identified in the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee which included the required members at their meetings. Specifically, the facility's Infection Preventionist failed to attend two of the last three quarterly QAPI meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide equal access to physical and occupational services for two Residents (#56 and #262) out of a sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility: 1. Limited Resident #56's physical and occupational therapy based on having Medicaid insurance to two times a week for two weeks. 2. Limited Resident #262's physical and occupational therapy based on having Medicaid insurance to two times a week for two weeks.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for seven Residents (#2, #25, #29, #263, #265, #82, and #27) out of total of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For 1a. Resident #2, 1b. Resident #25, 1c. Resident #29 , 1d. Resident # 262, and 1e. Resident #265, the facility failed to ensure physician prescribed medications were administered within an acceptable time frame; and 2. For Resident #82 and #27 to administer medication per the physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the court appointed legal guardian was fully informed in advance and given information necessary to make health care decisions to the extent required by the court, including the risk and benefits of psychotropic medication for one Resident (#7) from a total sample of 23 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician ordered pain medication Oxycodone 5 milligrams(mg), were administered every four hours as prescribed for one Resident (#263) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to administer on 4/29/25 the 8:00 A.M. prescribed dose of Oxycodone 5 mg for effective pain control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when one of two nurses observed during the medication pass made two errors out of 26 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.69%. Those errors impacted two Residents (#82 and #27).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff properly labeled all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted principles. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff properly labeled the packaging box and/or its multidose vial of Tubersol (tuberculin) (purified protein derivative, a combination of proteins that are used in the diagnosis of tuberculosis) stored inside two of three medication room storage refrigerators reviewed; and 2. Ensure staff properly labeled all medications stored in one of three medication carts reviewed once opened.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a reasonable accommodation was made for one Resident (#207), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident was provided with a call bell device that was within reach and able to be used if the Resident desired to call for assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, for one Resident (#207), of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to implement an individualized, person-centered care plan. Specifically, the facility failed, for Resident #207, who was status post partial left hip replacement, to implement the intervention for the use of an abductor wedge pillow to maintain anterior hip precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for one Resident (#206), out of a total sample of 22 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to administer medications per physician's orders and manufacturer's instructions for use.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, policy review, and interview for three Residents (#9, #35, and #75), of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, for Residents #9, #35, and #75, the facility failed to ensure an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS, a clinical outcome checklist completed by a healthcare provider to assess the presence and severity of adverse outcomes, such as abnormal movements of the face, limbs, and body in patients) assessment was completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections within the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices for hand hygiene while preparing medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure their arbitration agreement specifically provides for the selection of a neutral arbitrator and venue that is convenient to both parties.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for four Residents (#89, #69, #22, and #29), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #89, to implement the Resident's interdisciplinary care plan for activities which resulted in a decline in the Resident's psychosocial well-being; 2. For Resident #69, to implement the Resident's interdisciplinary care plan for his/her dominant language and failed to support the Resident's cultural and activities preferences; 3. For Resident #22, to regard the Resident's need for communication in his/her dominant language of Portuguese and failed to implement their Translation and/or Interpretation of facility services policy; and 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure quality of care was provided, according to the plan of care, facility protocols, and professional standards of practice for three Residents (#32, #55, and #69), out of 27 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #32, to promote and manage the delivery of safe nursing care in accordance with accepted Standards of Nursing Practice by failing to conduct ongoing assessment of a change in condition, inform the Physician of the change, and provide necessary care and treatment for a Resident with a hematoma (collection (or pooling) of blood outside the blood vessel) and worsening pain and swelling; 2. Resident #55, to provide appropriate care and equipment to maintain their level of function (transfer and ambulation) resulting in a decline in functional status; and 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure behavioral health services were provided to Resident #63 with major depressive disorder, who exhibited frequent crying. The total sample was 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to conduct and implement a comprehensive facility wide assessment that was inclusive of resources necessary to provide both emergency and day to day care of the population the facility currently serves.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that addressed the full range of care and services, was comprehensive and data-driven, and focused on indicators of outcomes of quality of life, care, and services to residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) plan to address the full range of care and services provided by the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Measure the success of performance improvement projects (PIPs), actions taken, track performance, and regularly review, analyze and act on data collected; and 2. Ensure the quality assurance committee identified quality deficient areas identified during the survey period to develop and implement an appropriate corrective action plan to ensure satisfactory outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, document review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee that included the required members at their meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, policy review, and document review, the facility failed to implement their policy to grant COVID-19 vaccination exemptions for staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure, as part of its quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program, mandatory training that outlined and informed staff of the elements and goals of the facility's QAPI program was conducted.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive ethics and compliance training program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that dignity was provided during the dining experience for four Residents (#15, #32, #84, and #89), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that staff: 1. For Resident #15, did not stand over the Resident while assisting him/her to eat in the Unit dining room; 2. For Residents #32, a. delivered meals to all residents seated at his/her table simultaneously and did not wait an extended period of time to receive his/her meal while watching tablemates eat, and b. did not stand over the Resident while feeding him/her in the dining room; 3. For Resident #84, delivered meals to all residents seated at his/her table simultaneously and did not wait an extended period of time to receive his/her meal while watching tablemates eat; 4. For Resident #89, a. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a resident group meeting, staff interviews, policy and document review, the facility failed to ensure grievances and concerns from the Resident Council regarding a lack of face cloths and towels was acted upon timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement individual person-centered care plans for seven Residents (#56, #22, #51, #54, #29, #32, and #89), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #56, to develop a person-centered plan of care to monitor suicidal ideation; 2. For Resident #22, to develop and implement an individualized care plan for healthcare proxy activation and language barrier; 3. For Resident #51, to develop a comprehensive care plan for both hearing loss and denture use; 4. For Resident #54, to develop a comprehensive plan of care for an abdominal wound; 5. For Resident #29, to develop and implement an individualized plan of care for communication needs; 6. For Resident #32, to develop and consistently implement a comprehensive care plan for: a. [...]
Inspectors wrote7. Resident #395 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with medical diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, and adult failure to thrive. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 10/29/22, included but was not limited to: -Myrbetriq Tablet Extended Release 24-hour, 50 MG (Miregron ER) Give 1 tablet via G-Tube one time a day for urinary antispasmodics, (10/29/22). On 11/3/22 at 09:47 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #6 on the Grove Unit administering medications to Resident #395 via Gastrostomy-Tube. Upon reviewing the medication poured, Nurse #6 said Myrbetriq (used to treat overactive bladder) 50 MG tablet was not available. Nurse #6 said this medication is not available in an Emergency Kit/ house stock. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed for four Residents (#22, #29, #69, and #89) to provide an ongoing activity program to meet and support the individual preferences of the residents, out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #22, to provide support to pursue their one to one (1:1) preferred activities of choice in his/her room; 2. For Resident #29, to support their choice for independent activities; 3. For Resident #69, to encourage and support their choice of group and independent activities and interaction with his/her peers that met their cultural and cognitive needs; and 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment which would remain free of accidents and hazards including for two Residents (#64, #10), in a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #64, to conduct a fall risk assessment and implement interventions following a fall; 2. For Resident #10, ensure hazardous items were not left at the bedside and accessible to wandering residents on the unit; and 3. Ensure (a.) one housekeeping closet and (b.) one supply closet were locked, and hazardous/toxic items chemicals were not accessible to wandering residents on the [NAME] Unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to a. Ensure an opened Insulin Emergency Kit was returned to the Pharmacy in exchange for a new kit; b. Ensure an expired medication was not administered to a resident; and c. Dispose of an overflow of non-controlled medications in the collection receptacle.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication irregularities identified during the Pharmacist's Drug Regimen Review were reported and acted upon for two Residents (#73 and #63), out of five residents sampled for unnecessary medication reviews.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) and the effectiveness of an anti-coagulant agent prescribed for five Residents (#10, #32 #72, #401 and #73), from a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to store medications and biologicals in a safe manner. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #10, to ensure wound treatment supplies were not left out and unsecured in the Resident's room; 2. For Resident #32, to ensure treatment supplies were not left out and unsecured in the Resident's room; and 3. To label refrigerated medications appropriately, store and label Tuberculin (used in a test by hypodermic injection for infection with or immunity to tuberculosis) vials appropriately and ensure medications in the active medication cart were not expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or the resident representative had information in advance to exercise the resident's rights for one Resident (#22), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the Resident's Health Care Proxy (HCP) and Resident #22 were given information necessary to make health care decisions, including the risks and benefits of psychotropic medications and provide consent for its use, prior to administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or their representative were fully informed in advance and given information necessary to make health care decisions, including the purpose for psychotropic medications as well as the risks and benefits, prior to their use for three Residents (#19, #24, and #71), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to accurately reflect the updated Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST)/Advanced Directive in the medical record for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to notify the Physician of seizure activity for one Resident (#64), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' rights to personal privacy and confidentiality was promoted and protected for one Resident (#32), from a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff did not communicate Resident #32's private health information and images of his/her body with his/her Physician via text messaging utilizing an unsecured mobile phone platform.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for one Resident (#15), out of a total sample of 27 residents, and for one allegation brought forward during a Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #15, to follow their policy for investigating and reporting a bruise of unknown origin; and 2. To follow their policy for reporting and investigating an allegation of neglect that was documented in Resident Council Minutes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the State Agency, for one Resident (#15), out of a total sample of 27 residents, and for one allegation brought forward during a Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, the facility failed to report: 1. a bruise of unknown origin for Resident #15; and 2. an allegation of neglect that was documented in Resident Council Minutes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were investigated and residents protected from further harm for two Residents (#15 and #32), out of a sample of 27 residents, and for one allegation brought forward during a Resident Council Meeting. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate and protect: 1. Resident #15, for a bruise of unknown origin; 2. Resident #32, for an allegation of abuse; and 3. A Resident identified in the August 2022 Resident Council Minutes that alleged neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff issued transfer notices to two Residents (#32 and #543) or Resident Representatives, out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or the resident's representative was provided a written notice of a bed hold transfer as required for two Residents (#32 and #543), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff developed and implemented a baseline care plan within 48 hours of the resident's admission, that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to the resident that meet professional standards of quality care and provide the resident and his or her representative, if applicable, with a written summary of the baseline care plan for one Resident (#243), in a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for anticoagulation therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for one Resident (#54)'s nephrostomy tube (thin plastic tube that is passed from the back, through the skin and then through the kidney where the urine collects) based on their changing needs/status, out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 27 residents, received the proper treatment to maintain hearing abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services for one Resident (#54), out of 27 sampled residents, with a nephrostomy tube (thin plastic tube that is passed from the back, through the skin and then through the kidney, to the point where urine collects). Specifically, the facility failed to securely anchor the nephrostomy tube to help prevent inadvertent dislodgment, provide ongoing assessment, and educate the Resident on self-care to help prevent catheter-related urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the cleaning of respiratory care equipment for one Resident #78, in a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#543) of one resident receiving hemodialysis treatment, care and services were consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center regarding care and services was maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the physician reviewed the total program of care for two Residents (#64 and #69), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the physician failed to review the following total programs of care for: 1. Resident #64 with a diagnosis of epilepsy and use of an anticonvulsant medication; and 2. Resident #69 with a pacemaker.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#64), in a sample of 27 residents, had been seen by a physician every sixty days and that required visits alternated between the Physician and the Nurse Practitioner.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Residents #63 was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications, in a sample of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. Specifically, for Resident #63, the facility failed to ensure a.) an antipsychotic was given to treat a specific condition and was given in the lowest possible dosage for the shortest period of time, and b.) an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility in July 2022 with a diagnosis dementia, major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psychotic features, and anxiety. a. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated an order initiated on 7/12/22 for Olanzapine (antipsychotic) 5 milligrams (mg) three times per day for mood disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide routine dental services to meets the needs for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide skilled rehabilitative services following an appeal decision for one Resident (#22), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained accurate documentation for two Residents (#72, #1B), out of a total of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #72, ensure the Resident's comprehensive care plan did not include a cardiac monitoring device when the Resident did not have one; and 2. For Resident #1B, accurately identify the rationale/diagnosis for the use of the medication Valproic Acid.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that services were coordinated with the Hospice provider to implement the resident's plan of care as required in the provider contract agreement for two Residents (#10 and #72), of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #10: a. an integrated care plan was developed to accurately reflect services provided by both the Hospice provider and facility staff, and b. the Hospice provider's plan of care for Home Health Aide services was implemented and documented in the medical record; and 2. For Resident #72: a. to ensure an integrated care plan was developed to accurately reflect services provided by both the Hospice provider and facility staff, and b. the Hospice provider's plan of care for Home Health Aide services was implemented and documented in the medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to document the administration and results of a COVID-19 test for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 27 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN/ CMS-10055) was completed and signed to ensure the Resident/Resident Representative was fully informed of the services being discontinued and a determination was made to continue or discontinue services at a skilled level of care for three Residents (#43, #52, and #193), out of three sampled residents who received SNF ABN notices, as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
26 fire safety citations on file: 17 on April 30, 2025, 3 on April 23, 2024, 6 on November 10, 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) | 3.29 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.80 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.97 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.63 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.1% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 48.1% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.82 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 2.97 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.59 in April to June 2025 to 3.29 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 | 3.29 | 0.80 | 3.41 | 2.97 | 7.0% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.32 | 0.87 | 3.44 | 3.00 | 6.4% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 1.01 | 3.83 | 2.96 | 7.9% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.59 | 1.10 | 3.84 | 2.96 | 8.6% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| 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 | 33.2 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 33.6 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.1 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.6 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.5 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Guardian Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (38.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.2% this home
Worse than 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. 106 eligible stays.
11.2% 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. 131 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 93 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 61 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 92 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 92 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 23 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: GUARDIAN SNF OPERATIONS BHC. CMS links this home to Best Care Services, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Madi, Sami | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Chapler, Yaakov | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Steinberg, Moshe | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Twomagnets LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/10/2023 | |
| Al-Madi, Sami | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Asaker, Bahige | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Chapler, Yaakov | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Steinberg, Moshe | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Zraizaa G, Nancy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Chapler, Yaakov | General partnership interest | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Steinberg, Moshe | General partnership interest | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Bonadio & Co LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Twomagnets LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/17/2025 | |
| Asaker, Bahige | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Zraizaa G, Nancy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 |
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.