SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Sanfield Rehab & Living Center in Hartland, Maine, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #14 out of 77 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 4 in Somerset County, meaning it is the best local option available. The facility's performance is stable, with the number of issues remaining consistent at 8 in both 2022 and 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect 5/5 rating and a turnover rate of 42%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting staff members are experienced and familiar with residents' needs. However, there were some concerns noted during inspections, including failures to complete required assessments for residents in hospice care and a lack of care plans for those residents, which could impact their management and support. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Maine
- #14/77
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% 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 77 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
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Maine average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Maine avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
8 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete an annual Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 with Care Area Assessments timely for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Accident Haz...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 in a timely manner for 2 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #11 [R11] and R7).The Long Ter...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 review and interview, the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations at least every 12 months for 1 of 5 sampled employees (Certified Nursing Assistant ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control Program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection by f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a bed gap filler (bumper pad) was in place between the mattress and foot of bed frame to eliminate the potential risk of entrapm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS 3.0) assessment within 14 days of a resident's admission to hospice serv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews, Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) reviews and interviews, the facility failed to electronically submit discharge MDS data to the State MDS database within 14 days after completion fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan was developed in the area of Hospice care for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Hospice (Resident #10 [R10...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
8 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to develop/implement goals and interventions for a pacemaker for 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to obtain provider orders for the maintenance and monitoring of a pacem...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that a resident who requires dialysis services was monitored...
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, interview, and the facility's food storage policy, the facility failed to date and label foods in 2 of 4 reach-in freezers and 1 of 2 refrigerators( a walk-in refrigerator and a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) education and training report reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 5 CNA's completed education/training for Abuse, Neglect, Exploi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to assist residents to organize and hold monthly Resident Council meet...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0572
(Tag F0572)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of resident council meeting minutes and interview, the facility failed to inform residents of his or her rights ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on care plan reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide residents with a continuous resident cen...
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Maine.
- • 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.
- • 42% turnover. Below Maine's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Sanfield Rehab & Living Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Sanfield Rehab & Living Center Staffed?
CMS rates SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Maine average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Sanfield Rehab & Living Center?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Sanfield Rehab & Living Center?
SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER 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 NORTH COUNTRY ASSOCIATES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 23 certified beds and approximately 20 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HARTLAND, Maine.
How Does Sanfield Rehab & Living Center Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sanfield Rehab & Living Center?
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 Sanfield Rehab & Living Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER 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 5-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 Sanfield Rehab & Living Center Stick Around?
SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Sanfield Rehab & Living Center Ever Fined?
SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER 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 Sanfield Rehab & Living Center on Any Federal Watch List?
SANFIELD REHAB & LIVING CENTER 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.