SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Seal Rock Healthcare in Saco, Maine, has received an F trust grade, indicating significant concerns and a poor quality of care. It ranks #75 out of 77 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #8 out of 9 in York County, meaning there is only one facility in the county that performs worse. The situation is worsening, with the number of issues escalating from 4 in 2023 to 5 in 2025. While staffing is a strength with a 4 out of 5-star rating, the turnover rate is concerning at 66%, significantly higher than the state average. Notably, the facility has incurred $75,433 in fines, which is higher than 96% of facilities in Maine, indicating ongoing compliance problems. Critical incidents have included a failure to properly manage a gastroenteritis outbreak, which resulted in the spread of symptoms among 17 residents due to inadequate isolation and PPE measures. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the significant weaknesses in care quality and safety raise serious concerns for prospective residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Maine
- #75/77
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $75,433 in fines. Lower than most Maine facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Maine. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Maine average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
19pts above Maine avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
18 points above Maine average of 48%
The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
5 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to identify and implement isolation/contact precautions...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that resident's Power of Attorney (POA) was notified of a significant change in medical condition for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for ...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was followed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for diabetes management. (Resident #29)
Findings:
On 4/2/25 a surveyor ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff immediately initiated isolation/...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations and record review the Administration failed to follow the facility's Infection - Clinical Prot...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
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
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 ensure that the facility's Bowel Maintenance Program was followed, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to serve residents meals in a homelike manner by serving meals on paper/plastic dishware plates and plastic cutlery. That has the ability to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
2 deficiencies
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a treatment cart containing multiple medicated creams, powders...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide residents a whirlpool/shower as directed by a residents p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Activity of Daily Living (ADL) assistance was provide...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory services as directed by physician orders related to humidification for 1 of 4 residents reviewed who rec...
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 adequately provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and implemented within 48...
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 record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to adequately store controlled substances in a permanent...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, and Facility Reported Incident review, the facility failed to ensure that clinical recor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the 8/17/2022 statement of deficiencies and plan of correction (POC) in effect from the annual Long Term Care...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean/sanitary environment on 3 or 7 units observed (Ram ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
2. Review of Resident #374's clinical record a surveyor noted resident was transferred to an acute care facility on 7/15/22 and subsequently admitted . The surveyor could not locate evidence in the cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
2. Documentation in Resident #374's clinical record indicated that he/she was transferred to an acute care facility on 7/15/22 and subsequently admitted . The clinical record contained no evidence tha...
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 interview, 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 →
Nov 2019
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to inform a resident or their representative, in advance, of treatment risks and benefits, options, and alternatives related to use of an ant...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's choice in the area of bathing frequency were being followed for 1 of 15 resident/family interviewed (Resident #65...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0675
(Tag F0675)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to provide services to a resident necessary to attain the highest practicable level of care related to positioning during 1 of 4 observed meal ...
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** 4.
On [DATE], at 10:45 a. m., the [NAME] Island medication storage room refrigerator was observed by the surveyor and the charg...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2018
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 ensure the dignity of all residents by allowing an uncovered urine filled catheter bag to be seen by passersby for 1 of 7 residents with ur...
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 that food, readily available in the unit refrigerators, was unopened, labeled, dated, and maintained in a sanitary manner in 3 of 5 ...
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
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control Program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) were provided to 2 of 3 residents reviewed whose Medicare...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, $75,433 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $75,433 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Maine. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Seal Rock Healthcare's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Maine, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Seal Rock Healthcare Staffed?
CMS rates SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 19 percentage points above the Maine average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Seal Rock Healthcare?
State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 22 with potential for harm, and 5 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Seal Rock Healthcare?
SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE 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 FIRST ATLANTIC HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 105 certified beds and approximately 85 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SACO, Maine.
How Does Seal Rock Healthcare Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Seal Rock Healthcare?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Seal Rock Healthcare Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Maine. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Seal Rock Healthcare Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE is high. At 66%, the facility is 19 percentage points above the Maine average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Seal Rock Healthcare Ever Fined?
SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE has been fined $75,433 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Maine average of $33,833. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Seal Rock Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?
SEAL ROCK HEALTHCARE is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.