GORHAM HOUSE
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Gorham House in Gorham, Maine has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice overall. It ranks #24 out of 77 facilities in Maine, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 17 in Cumberland County, meaning there are only a few local options better than it. The facility is improving, having reduced reported issues from 9 in 2023 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate of 54% is average, suggesting some staff changes occur. While Gorham House has no fines on record, which is a positive sign, there have been concerns raised during inspections, such as inadequate housekeeping and failure to implement proper infection control measures. Additionally, there was a reported incident of verbal abuse involving staff and a resident, indicating a need for better oversight and training. Overall, while there are strengths in the facility, families should consider these weaknesses carefully.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Maine
- #24/77
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maine facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 70 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
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Maine avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
1 deficiency
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI), 5-day incident follow-up, facility's abuse prohibition policy, and investigative report, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 6 sampled resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan by an interdisciplinary team (IDT),...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment was free of a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. On 3/27/23 at 1:35 p.m., a surveyor observed an unlocked unattended treatment cart int the hallway of Windsor 1 unit. There were two residents sitting in the hallway next to the cart. The cart cont...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interviews, the facility's Dish Machine Use - Policy Interpretation and Implementation, the facility's Refrigerators and Freezers - Policy Interpretation and Implementation, the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to follow their own policy and failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of the transfers/discharges to an acute care hospital for 1 of 3 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to issue a bed hold notice which included the daily bed hold cost, to a resident, known family member or legal representative for 1 of 3 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to post the current daily nurse staffing information that includes the facility name, day of the month, a breakdown of the number of registered...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2020
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to adequately store medication (insulin pens) in a locked compartment of the treatment administration cart on 1 of 4 days of survey and on 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that dental services were scheduled and provided as ordered on 1 of 33 residents selected for further investigation. (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a clinical record contained documentation for pressure ulcer care on 2 dates in 1 of 33 residents selected for furthe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2019
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and interviews, the facility failed to revise a care plan related to pressure ulcers to meet 1 of 17 sampled residents needs (Resident #9).
Finding:
A review of Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to adequately store controlled substances in a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment in 3 of 3 observations of medication storage ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Gorham House's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GORHAM HOUSE 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 Gorham House Staffed?
CMS rates GORHAM HOUSE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Maine average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Gorham House?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at GORHAM HOUSE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 12 with potential for harm and 4 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Gorham House?
GORHAM HOUSE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 69 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GORHAM, Maine.
How Does Gorham House Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, GORHAM HOUSE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Gorham House?
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 Gorham House Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GORHAM HOUSE 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 Gorham House Stick Around?
GORHAM HOUSE has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Maine average of 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 Gorham House Ever Fined?
GORHAM HOUSE 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 Gorham House on Any Federal Watch List?
GORHAM HOUSE 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.