MADIGAN ESTATES
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Madigan Estates in Houlton, Maine has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice but not without its issues. It ranks #5 out of 77 facilities in Maine, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 7 in Aroostook County, so there are only two local options considered better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 13 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, boasting a 5-star rating with a turnover rate of 38%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with residents' needs. However, the facility has faced $11,450 in fines, which is average, and there have been notable incidents, such as a serious failure to properly assist a resident during a transfer, leading to a significant injury, and concerns about following prescribed diet orders, which could impact residents' health. Overall, while Madigan Estates has strong staffing and a solid trust grade, families should be aware of the recent increase in issues and specific incidents that may affect care quality.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Maine
- #5/77
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Maine's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $11,450 in fines. Lower than most Maine facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 53 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Maine. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 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 (38%)
10 points below Maine average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Maine avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
May 2025
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
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 an as needed (prn) psychotropic medication met the required ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an alleged allegation of physical and verbal abuse was reported to the Division of Licensing and Certification for 1 of 2 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical and verbal abuse was investigated for 1 of 2 complaints reviewed (Resident #13 [R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 was coded accurately on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and implemented within 48 hours, that included the instructions needed to provide minimu...
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 record reviews and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan after a resident qualfied for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II services for 1 of 3 residents...
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
Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow a policy for completing neurological assessments after a fall for 1 of 2 sampled residents who had fallen and hit ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician orders included an order for the use of a Foley catheter for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #26 [R26]).
Finding:
On 5/21/...
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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that dented cans were removed from use, the facility failed to ensure products in the reach-in refrigerator located in the kitchens ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's record contained the Power of Attorney paperwork for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #...
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control Program designed to help prevent the development and spread of infection related to Enhanced Bar...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) employee education record review and interview, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective training program to ensure that a CNA attended the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse for 1 of 1 residents revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 that the State Mental Health authority for Pre-admission Scr...
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 and interview facility failed to enure that food products were dated and labeled, and failed to ensure dented cans were taken out of circulation for use on 2 of 4 days of survey ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure that a physician order for a mechanical soft diet was followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 ensure respiratory care equipment was hooked up properly for 1 of 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 ensure expired medications and topicals were removed from the suppl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were complete and contained accurate information for 2 of 20 residents reviewed for catheter use and for medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility reported incident review, facility investigation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, the facility reportable incident report, investigation review, employee timecard review, and interview, the facility failed to protect residents from further abuse by ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
4 deficiencies
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff washed/sanitized their hands during a medication pass observation for 1 of 3 medication pass observations.
Finding:
On 5/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed for 1 of 3 residents observed during a medication pass (Resident #4).
Finding:
On...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 foods in the freezer remained frozen solid for 1 of 1 observation and with review of the walk-in freezer temperature log sheets for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of the facility's 'Influenza Immunization Policy,' admission Influenza Consent form and interview, the facility failed to provide the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative with...
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
- • 38% turnover. Below Maine's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $11,450 in fines. Above average for Maine. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Madigan Estates's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MADIGAN ESTATES 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 Madigan Estates Staffed?
CMS rates MADIGAN ESTATES's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Maine average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Madigan Estates?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at MADIGAN ESTATES during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 22 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Madigan Estates?
MADIGAN ESTATES 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 99 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HOULTON, Maine.
How Does Madigan Estates Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, MADIGAN ESTATES's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Madigan Estates?
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 Madigan Estates Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MADIGAN ESTATES 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 Madigan Estates Stick Around?
MADIGAN ESTATES has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Madigan Estates Ever Fined?
MADIGAN ESTATES has been fined $11,450 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Maine average of $33,193. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Madigan Estates on Any Federal Watch List?
MADIGAN ESTATES 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.