WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE

750 UNION ST, BANGOR, ME 04401 (207) 942-7336
For profit - Limited Liability company 65 Beds NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#35 of 77 in ME
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: March 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Westgate Center for Rehab & Alzheimer's Care has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #35 out of 77 in Maine, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #4 out of 11 in Penobscot County, which means only three local options are better. However, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated at 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 31%, significantly better than the state average of 49%. Notably, there have been no fines, indicating compliance with regulations, and the facility provides more RN coverage than 79% of Maine facilities, enhancing resident care. On the downside, there are ongoing concerns, such as pest control issues, with small flies observed in multiple areas, including resident rooms and the kitchen. Additionally, there have been delays in completing residents' assessments, with several instances of records being submitted late. These factors, while concerning, are balanced by the facility’s generally good staffing and care rating.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Maine
#35/77
Top 45%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% turnover. Near Maine's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maine facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 73 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Maine nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (31%)

    17 points below Maine average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below Maine avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

Mar 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to a dignified existence and right of self-determination for a visitor for 1 of 1 resident's reviewed for Dignit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to a dignified existence and right of self-determination for a visitor for 1 of 1 resident's reviewed for Dignity (Resident # 10 [R10]). Finding: 1. On 3/25/25 at 9:10 a.m., a surveyor observed from the resident hallway, R10 lying in his/her bed. R10's pants were below his/her waste with an exposed brief. A wash basin was observed on the bedside table and R10 was talking with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). After the surveyor knocked on the open door and introduced self, the CNA made 2 attempts to close the door and prevent communication with the resident. The resident provided consent for the surveyor to enter and observe care. On 3/26/25 at 12:00 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing, the surveyor confirmed that R10's right to privacy and self-determination for a visitor was not protected. 2. On 3/25/25 at 9:18 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor and R10, CNA1 and CNA2 entered R10's room and explained to the surveyor that R10's family took the shoes home, that R10 cannot wear them until the wound on his/her heel resolves. At this time the surveyor requested this to be explained to the resident not the surveyor. Staff repeated the explanation to R10. R10 stated, I wish people would tell me instead of taking them without talking to me. After CNA1 and CNA2 left the room, R10 denied having a wound on his/her feet. R10 removed his/her slippers one at a time and stated, do you see anything? No wounds were observed on the heels at that time. On 3/26/25 at 8:26 a.m., during an interview with R10 and CNA3, R10 repeated concern for his/her missing shoes. R10 stated he/she did not believe they went home with family. CNA3 stated she would look into the missing shoes. At 9:21 a.m., CNA3 stated R10's shoes are in his/her dresser. R10's shoes were observed in the dresser drawer at that time. On 3/26/25 at 12:00 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing, a surveyor confirmed that the R10 was not treated with dignity when staff talked about him/her instead of to R10 directly regarding the missing shoes.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement a resident's care plan in the area a restorative walking program for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement a resident's care plan in the area a restorative walking program for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #10 [R10]). Finding: On 3/25/25 at 9:35 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, R10 stated he/she is losing his/her ability to walk. R10 stated, I don't think anyone walked with me after therapy [ended]. I think I am a blind spot. On 3/26/25 at 10:40 a.m., a surveyor observed R10 ambulating in the hallway with Physical Therapy (PT) staff. PT stated nursing notified her of a decline in function and R10 has had several falls prompting her to conduct today's evaluation. On 3/26/25, R10's clinical record was reviewed. The care plan identified R10 as having a functional mobility deficit, for which the intervention AMBULATION: [R10] will ambulate 50-75 feet with 2 wheel walker and extensive assist, as patient is able, last revised on 3/12/25. On 3/26/25 at 12:19 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor and the Director of Nursing (DON), R10's clinical records was reviewed. The DON stated R10 should ambulate with staff on day and evening shift. At this time the surveyor confirmed that the medical record lacked evidence that R10 was ambulated 50-75 feet twice daily as directed by the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments for a resident who had a fall and hit their head, failed to follow their Bowel Regimen, and failed to f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments for a resident who had a fall and hit their head, failed to follow their Bowel Regimen, and failed to follow physician orders for 3 of 18 residents reviewed (Resident #3 [R3], R48, and R6). Findings: 1. On 3/25/25 at 8:47 a.m., R3's clinical record was reviewed. On 3/20/25 at 12:37 p.m., a health status note from Third eye Health with a date of service of 6:04 a.m. it was documented that R3 being seen for an unwitnessed fall that occurred at 5:30 a.m. he/she was found on the floor in their room. R3 has a hematoma to the back of head to left side and reports head pain. Clinical record review shows documentation for Neuro checks that were initiated on 3/21/25 at 1:00 p.m. and lacked evidence that Neuro checks were completed as outlined in their Neurological Evaluation Policy. The facility's Neurological Evaluation Policy dated 4/23 and their neurological (neuro)/vital sign check sheet instructs staff that the licensed nurse performs neurological evaluations whenever there is the possibility of a head injury. On page 2 under number 3 the instructions for the timeframe for the neuro checks to be completed are: After the initial evaluation, the neuro checks are repeated every 15 minutes x 4 (1 hour, (hr.), every 30 minutes x 4 (2hrs), every 2 hours x 4 (8hrs), then every shift x 8 (64hrs) The columns on the form to be completed included nurse's initials, date, time, vital signs (temperature, pulse, respirations, blood pressure) and neurological check (pupils, level of consciousness, motor function, speech, and facial symmetry). On 3/26/25 at 11:47 a.m., during a clinical record review with the Regional Director of Clinical operations the surveyor confirmed that the clinical record lacked evidence that the facility followed their Neurological Evaluation Policy after R3 had a fall with a head injury. 2. The facility's Bowel Regimen dated 4/27/23 under the heading procedure number 2. instructs that the charge nurse will review the Bowel Movement (BM) Record for residents in need of the bowel regime and list residents who have not had sufficient BM'S within the last three days, prune Juice (warm/cold upon preference) 4 ounce (oz) and senna-s 8.6/50 milligram (mg) tab, give 2 tabs by mouth x 1 now (at the beginning of the 10th shift) 3. If insufficient BM after the prune juice the charge nurse will administer Dulcolax tablet 10 mg by mouth the following shift. On 3/24/25 at 11:43 a.m. during a clinical record review a health status note for an acute visit with date of service for 3/19/25 at 8:45 a.m. documented that R46 is being seen today for loose stools. Staff reported R46 was having large loose stools. R46 was also seen on 3/12/2025 for diarrhea. Bowel medications were adjusted and held due to loose stools. During this record review it is documented that on 3/19/25 at 7:46 a.m. R46 received the Dulcolax 5 mg, 2 tablets to equal 10mg for constipation and resulted in R46 having a large loose stool prior to being seen by the Provider. The Bowel elimination record review showed that R46 had 2 large bowel movements on 3/18/25, a large bowel movement on 3/17/25 and a large bowel movement and a medium bowel movement on 3/16/25 showing R46 was not constipated and did not need a laxative per their bowel regimen policy. R46 did not go for 3 days without a bowel movement and was seen by the Provider for diarrhea on 3/12/25. On 3/26/25 at 2:06 p.m. during the review of R46's bowel elimination record and during an interview with the charge Nurse RN#1, the surveyor confirmed that R46 should not have received the Dulcolax laxative as he/she had 2 large bowel movements on 3/18/25 and did not meet the criteria for using the bowel regimen. 3. On 3/26/25, R6's clinical record was reviewed and included orders for Humalog (insulin) sliding scale to be administered at 5 units if blood sugar was 350 or greater (hold insulin if resident refuses meal) and for Hydralazine 10 milligram tablet to be administered if systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 160 or above. A review of R6's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2025 was completed. On 2/19/25 at 1:00 p.m., R6's blood sugar was 406 but the documentation on the TAR indicated that the Humalog sliding scale insulin was not administered. On 2/2/25, R6's SBP was 121 but documentation on the MAR indicated Hydralazine was administered. A review of R6's TAR and MAR for March 2025 was completed. On 3/11/25 at 6:00 p.m., R6's blood sugar was 355 but the documentation on the TAR indicated that the Humalog sliding scale insulin was not administered. The medication Hydralazine was documented as administered when SBP was less than 160 as follows: 3/8/25 at 5:00 p.m. when SBP was 132, 3/9/25 at 8:00 a.m. when SBP was 133, 3/10/25 at 5:00 p.m. when SBP was 142, and 3/17/25 at 5:00 p.m. when SBP was 129. On 3/26/25 at 2:03 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing, a surveyor confirmed these findings. The DON stated that the insulin should have been administered because documentation also indicated that R6 ate greater than 50% of his/her meal and the Hydralazine should not have been administered.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that hot water temperatures in resident rooms and restroom d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that hot water temperatures in resident rooms and restroom did not exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) on 2 of 3 days of survey (3/24/25 and 3/25/25). Findings: 1. On 3/24/25 between 11:47 a.m. thru 12:36 p.m., surveyors observed the following hot water temperatures: In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 11:49 a.m., the hot water temperature was 121.7 degrees F and at 11:57 a.m. was 120.9 degrees F; In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 11:59 a.m., the hot water temperature was 121.1 F; In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:07 p.m., the hot water temperature was 124.1 F; In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:10 p.m., the hot water temperature was 125.0 F; In Cascade Unit Shower/Restroom at 12:25 p.m., the hot water temperature was 125.4 F; In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:27 p.m., the hot water temperature was 122.3 F; In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:28 p.m., the hot water temperature was 122.3 F; and In room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:30 p.m., the hot water temperature was 120.5 F. On 3/24/25 at 12:50 p.m., the surveyor informed the Administrator that there was hot water greater than 120 degrees F. At 12:57 p.m., the surveyor notified the Maintenance Director of the surveyors findings of hot water. 2. On 3/25/25, in room [ROOM NUMBER] at 12:07 p.m., the hot water temperature was 120.7 F. On 3/26/25 at 7:30 a.m., the Administrator stated that additional water temperature adjustments were completed last night when Mechanical Services lowered the temperature less than 120 degrees. Documentation indicated the facility was monitoring hot water temperatures in resident rooms daily and the temperature log did not reflect temperatures above 120 degrees.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on performance evaluation reviews and interview, the facility failed to complete an annual performance evaluation at least every 12 months for 1 of 5 sampled employees (Certified Nursing Assista...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on performance evaluation reviews and interview, the facility failed to complete an annual performance evaluation at least every 12 months for 1 of 5 sampled employees (Certified Nursing Assistant #3 [CNA3]). Finding: CNA3 was hired on 12/20/2012. A review of CNA3's performance evaluation, dated 3/21/23 thru 12/10/24, indicated the evaluation was completed 8 months and 20 days past the 12 month evaluation period. On 3/26/25 at 8:00 a.m., in an interview with the surveyor, the Assistant Director of Nursing, confirmed that CNA3 receive her performance evaluation 8 months and 20 days late.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 2 of 3 days of survey (3/24/25, and 3/...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 2 of 3 days of survey (3/24/25, and 3/25/25). Findings: On 3/24/25 at 10:20 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen with the Food Service Supervisor (FSS), a surveyor observed in the walk in freezer, a package of Jennie-O Turkey Breast and Thigh Roast on the shelf. Package observed to have frozen raw meat / juices attached to the side of the package and exposed to the environment. A surveyor confirmed this finding with the FSS at the time of the observation. On 3/25/25 at 11:51 a.m., during a kitchen observation, a surveyor observed [NAME] #1 serving plates and wearing a glove on the right hand only. The gloved hand handled serving spoons and bread to serve food onto dishes. [NAME] #1's bare left hand was observed to be in contact with the surface of the dishes while plating food. [NAME] #1 opened a new bag of bread, walked to the trash, lifted the trash with one hand while reaching the other hand in to throw away the bread bag. [NAME] #1 then donned a new glove and returned to the steam table to serve food. At this time the surveyor confirmed with [NAME] #1 that she had been in contact with the trash and returned to serve food without washing her hands. On 3/25/25 at 11:54 a.m., a surveyor observed [NAME] #2 remove his soiled gloves and throw them in the trash. [NAME] #2's bare hands were observed to be in contact with the trash at that time. [NAME] #2 picked up the thermometer and attempted to place it in the mashed potatoes. At this time the surveyor intervened and confirmed with [NAME] #2 he had been in contact with the trash, then the thermometer, without washing his hands. On 3/25/25 at 12:00 p.m., during an interview with a surveyor, [NAME] #2 stated they use the sanitizer bucket to clean the thermometer. The surveyor observed [NAME] #2 test the sanitizer bucket. The test strip result was 150 parts per million (ppm). [NAME] #2 stated the sanitizer bucket should contain a concentration of 200 ppm. A surveyor confirmed this finding with [NAME] #2 at the time of the observation.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on employee personnel files/in-service training reviews and interview, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective training program which includes, at a minimum, training on resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on employee personnel files/in-service training reviews and interview, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective training program which includes, at a minimum, training on resident rights by failing to ensure that 2 of 5 Certified Nurse Assistants (Certified Nurse Assistant #1 [CNA1] and CNA2) completed the required annual training. Findings: On 3/25/25, during a review of employee personnel files, the following was noted: 1. CNA1 was hired on 8/19/2020. CNA1's employee personnel file lacked evidence of mandatory resident rights education within the last twelve months. 2. CNA2 was hired on 5/27/2021. CNA2's employee personnel file lacked evidence of mandatory resident rights education within the last twelve months. On 3/26/25 at 8:00 a.m., in an interview with the surveyor, the Assistant Director of Nursing, confirmed that there was no evidence that CNA1 and CNA2, had received resident rights training.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests for 1 of 3 units observed for pests (Cascade Unit). Finding: On 3/24/25 a surveyor observed small flies in the following locations: -At 10:20 a.m., a small fly was observed circling over the full recyclable containers bin in the kitchen. -At 10:59 a.m., a small fly was observed in the hall outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. -At 11:20 a.m., a small fly was observed on a resident's bedding in room [ROOM NUMBER] and another small fly was observed in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. -At 11:35 a.m., a small fly was observed flying in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 3/25/25 a surveyor observed small flies in the following locations: -At 9:28 a.m., a small fly was observed flying in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. -At 11:30 a.m., a small fly was observed circling the trash in the dining room during the lunch service. -At 2:30 p.m., during an interview with the Food Services Supervisor (FSS), a swarm of small flies was observed in the kitchen by the dishwasher, flying around and landing on stacked ware-washer dish racks. The FSS stated this has been an ongoing problem. On 3/26/25 at 10:49 a.m., during an interview with the Maintenance Director and a surveyor, a swarm of small flies was observed by the dishwasher, flying around and landing on stacked ware-washer dish racks. The Maintenance Director stated Pest Control comes monthly. At this time the surveyor confirmed that the facility does not have an effective Pest Control Program.
Jan 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 1/31/24, a review of R6's clinical record was reviewed. R6's Annual MDS with CAA had an ARD of 1/12/24, and was due to be completed by 1/26/24, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R6's Annua...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 1/31/24, a review of R6's clinical record was reviewed. R6's Annual MDS with CAA had an ARD of 1/12/24, and was due to be completed by 1/26/24, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R6's Annual MDS was completed on 1/30/24, 4 days late. On 1/31/24 at 8:25 a.m., during an interview with the MDS Coordinator, two surveyors confirmed this finding when she stated she has been behind on finishing the MDS's in a timely manner. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete an Annual Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 with Care Area Assessment (CAA) in a timely manner for 2 of 14 sampled residents (Resident [R] 7, Resident [R] 6). Findings: 1. On 1/31/24, a review of R7's clinical record was reviewed. R7's Annual MDS with CAA had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/3/23 and was due to be completed by 9/17/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R7's Annual MDS was completed on 9/18/23, 1 day late. On 1/31/24 at 8:25 a.m., during an interview with a surveyor, the MDS Coordinator, stated she has been behind on finishing the MDS's in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 with Care Area Assessment (CAA) for a significant change in status, in a timely manner ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 with Care Area Assessment (CAA) for a significant change in status, in a timely manner for 1 of 14 sampled residents (Resident #9[R9]). Finding: On 1/31/24, R9's clinical record was reviewed. R9's significant change in status MDS with CAA had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/05/23, which was due to be completed by 12/19/23 (which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days). R9's MDS with CAA was completed on 12/25/23, 6 days late. On 1/31/24 at 8:25 a.m., during an interview with the MDS Coordinator, two surveyors confirmed this finding when she stated she has been behind on finishing the MDS's in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure garbage was properly disposed of and contained to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests for 1 of 3 days of survey (1/31/24). Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure garbage was properly disposed of and contained to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests for 1 of 3 days of survey (1/31/24). Finding: On 1/31/24 at approximately 12:12 p.m., two surveyors observed the dumpster filled with garbage bags not allowing the covers to be closed. During this observation the two surveyors observed a full black garbage bag that was under the dumpster that was spilling some of the contents on the ground on the right side of the dumpster, behind the dumpster were two bags filled with garbage. On 1/31/24 at 12:14 p.m., the two surveyors confirmed with the Maintenance Supervisor, Food Service Director, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and the Regional Director of clinical operations that the dumpster was full not allowing the covers to be closed and the garbage bags that were under and behind the dumpster.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

7. On 1/30/24, R10's clinical record was reviewed. R10's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/17/23 and was due to be completed by 10/31/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar day...

Read full inspector narrative →
7. On 1/30/24, R10's clinical record was reviewed. R10's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/17/23 and was due to be completed by 10/31/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R10's Quarterly MDS was completed on 11/13/23, 13 days late. On 1/31/24 at 8:25 a.m., during an interview with the MDS Coordinator, two surveyors confirmed this finding when she stated she has been behind on finishing the MDS's in a timely manner. 4. On 1/30/24, R35's clinical record was reviewed. R35's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/22/23 and was due to be completed by 12/6/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R35's Quarterly MDS was completed on 12/21/23, 15 days late. 5. On 1/31/24, a review of R7's clinical record was reviewed. R7's Quarterly MDS had an ARD of 12/4/23 and was due to be completed by 12/18/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R7's Quarterly MDS was completed on 12/25/23, 7 days late. 6. On 1/31/24, a review of R23's clinical record was reviewed. R23's Quarterly MDS had an ARD of 10/27/23 and was due to be completed by 11/10/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R23's Quarterly MDS was completed on 11/12/23, 2 days late. R23 had another Quarterly MDS with an ARD date of 11/20/23 and was due to be completed by 12/4/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R23's Quarterly MDS was completed on 12/2123, 17 days late. Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 in a timely manner for 7 of 14 sampled residents (Resident [R] R3, R5, R8, R35, R7, R23, R10 ). Findings: 1. On 1/30/24, R3's clinical record was reviewed. R3's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/24/23 and was due to be completed by 11/7/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R3's Quarterly MDS was completed on 11/27/23, 10 days late. 2. On 1/30/24, R5's clinical record was reviewed. R5's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/1/23 and was due to be completed by 12/15/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R5's Quarterly MDS was completed on 12/25/23, 10 days late. 3. On 1/30/24, R8's clinical record was reviewed. R8's Quarterly MDS had an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/25/23 and was due to be completed by 9/8/23, which is the ARD plus 14 calendar days. R8's Quarterly MDS was completed on 9/13/23, 5 days late.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure that plumbing fixtures were properly installed to prevent backflow as required by the Maine State Plumbing Code on 1 of 3 survey days...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure that plumbing fixtures were properly installed to prevent backflow as required by the Maine State Plumbing Code on 1 of 3 survey days (1/29/24). In addition, the facility failed to ensure products in the reach-in refrigerator located in the kitchen were labeled on 2 of 3 days of survey (1/29/24, 1/30/24). Findings: 1. On 1/29/24, at 11:00 a.m., three surveyors observed there was an improper air gap provided on the drain lines of the ice machine located in the hallway leading to the kitchen. This direct connection of wastewater and potable water was in violation of the 10-114 State of Maine Rules Chapter 226, definition Section A, which defines an Air-Gap Separation - A physical separation between the free-flowing discharge end of a potable water supply pipeline and an open or non-pressure receiving vessel. An air-gap separation shall be at least twice the diameter of the supply pipe measured vertically above the overflow rim of the vessel - in no case less than one inch (2.54 cm). On 1/29/24 at 11:10 a.m., a surveyor confirmed this finding with the Food Service Director (FSD). 2. On 1/29/24 at 11:13 a.m., during the initial kitchen tour, a surveyor observed 2 trays of individual cups of a yellow/orange substance that were not labeled in the reach in refrigerator. The surveyor asked the FSD what was in the individual cups, the FSD identified the substance to be sugar free pudding used for medication passes. 3. On 1/30/24 at 11:25 a.m., during a second tour of the kitchen, the surveyor observed 2 trays of individual cups of a yellow/orange substance that were not labeled in the reach in refrigerator. The surveyor confirmed with the FSD at this time that the trays were not labeled.
Oct 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to promote care for residents in a manner that maintains each resident's dignity and respect when staff failed to serve all residents seated at...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to promote care for residents in a manner that maintains each resident's dignity and respect when staff failed to serve all residents seated at the same table at the same time for 1 of 3 meal observations (10/24/22). Finding: On 10/24/22 on the Cascade Unit during the lunch meal observation between 11:20 a.m. and 11:55 a.m., it was observed that 6 residents were seated at a long table. These 6 residents needed assistance with their meals. All 6 residents had their meals placed on the table in front of them. At 11:25, 3 residents were being assisted with their meals while the other 3 residents sat there watching their tablemates being assisted with meals and beverages. At 11:50 a.m., a second surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON) why the 3 residents were not being assisted. The DON came into the Cascade dining room and instructed staff to assist the remaining 3 residents with their meals and staff questioned if they were able to assist 2 residents at a time during the meal service. The DON confirmed with the staff that they could assist 2 residents that were sitting side by side with their meal. At 11:57 a.m., 32 minutes after their tablemates were assisted. staff did begin to assist the other 3 residents. On 10/24/22 at 11:57 a.m., the two surveyors confirmed with the DON, the residents were not all assisted at the same time with their meals.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facilities interdisciplinary team failed to determine if it was clinically appropriate for a resident to keep a medication at bedside and self-...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facilities interdisciplinary team failed to determine if it was clinically appropriate for a resident to keep a medication at bedside and self-administer medications for 1 of 16 Residents investigated during the investigation stage of the survey process (Resident #32). Finding: On 10/24/22 at approximately 2:00 p.m., during the initial interview with Resident #32, the resident told surveyor that he/she was applying the cream for his/her arthritis in their knees 3 times a day. Surveyor asked what type of cream they were using, resident stated it was in his/her top drawer and couldn't remember the name. Resident showed surveyor a tube of Bio freeze pain relieving gel that they have been using. During review of his/her clinical record, an order for Bio freeze Gel 4 %, apply to left shoulder, bilateral knee topically two times a day for sore left shoulder and knee pain was noted. There was no evidence that the facilities interdisciplinary team determined it was clinically appropriate for Resident #32 to keep and self-administer the medicated gel. On 10/26/22 at 1:15 p.m., the surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON) what the facilities policy/process was for residents to self-administer medications. The DON stated the resident would need to be assessed to show they knew what the medication was and what it was being used for, they would also have to show they knew when it was due and could self-administer the medication properly. On 10/26/22 at 1:20 p.m., the surveyor and DON went down to resident room, the DON asked Resident #32 if she could look in resident top drawer. Resident gave permission and the DON found a tube of Bio freeze pain relieving gel and resident told her he/she had extra tubes as well. At that time, the surveyor confirmed with the DON that Resident #32 did not have a self-administrative assessment completed and did not have an order to keep the gel at bedside.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan based on the Care Area Assessment (CAA) for the behavior of wandering for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan based on the Care Area Assessment (CAA) for the behavior of wandering for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for behaviors (Resident #9). Finding: On 10/26/22, a review of Resident #9's Admission/Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0, dated 7/29/22 was completed. The 7/29/22 MDS 3.0 was coded in Section E: E0900 that wandering occurred daily. The Care Area Assessment (CAAs) for Behaviors was triggered to proceed to care plan for the behavior of wandering. A review of the 10/7/22 MDS 3.0, in Section E: E0900, it was coded that wandering occurred 4 to 6 days. There was no care plan for wandering found in Resident #9's clinical record. On 10/26/22 at 9:00 a.m., in an interview with the Director of Nursing, she confirmed Resident #9 did not have a care plan developed for wandering.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (prn) anti-psychotropic medication met the requirements for continued use beyond 14 days, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (prn) anti-psychotropic medication met the requirements for continued use beyond 14 days, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use (Resident #8). Finding: On 10/26/22, Resident #8's clinical record was reviewed. A physician order was written on 9/20/22 for Ativan Intensol 2 milligrams/milliliters (mg/ml) give 325 ml/0.5 mg sublingual (SL) every 4 hours prn for anxiety/End of Life/Hospice for 3 months with start date of 9/20/22. This medication order did not include a stop date for re-evaluation and the Physician progress notes did not include a rationale for continued use of this medication which would have been due by 10/4/22. On 10/26/22 at 12:33 p.m., during an interview with the DON, the surveyor confirmed with the DON that Resident #8's clinical record did not include a rationale to continue the Ativan beyond 14 days and the progress note did not include a rationale for the continued use beyond the 14 days.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maine facilities.
  • • 31% turnover. Below Maine's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Maine, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care Staffed?

CMS rates WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Maine average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care?

WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 65 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BANGOR, Maine.

How Does Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Maine. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care Stick Around?

WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for Maine nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care Ever Fined?

WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Westgate Center For Rehab & Alzheimers Care on Any Federal Watch List?

WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

WESTGATE CENTER FOR REHAB & ALZHEIMERS CARE

750 UNION ST, BANGOR, ME 04401 | (207) 942-7336

B
Trust Grade (75/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
17
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing
  • 4-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025