PIPER SHORES

15 PIPER ROAD, SCARBOROUGH, ME 04074 (207) 883-8700
Non profit - Corporation 40 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#13 of 77 in ME
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Piper Shores in Scarborough, Maine has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #13 out of 77 facilities in the state and #4 out of 17 in Cumberland County, placing it in the top half of options available. The facility's performance has been stable, with 8 issues reported in both 2023 and 2024, indicating no significant decline in quality. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 42%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff are experienced and familiar with the residents. Notably, there have been no fines, but there are concerns about staff not consistently performing hand hygiene after care and lapses in ensuring CPR training for all staff members, as well as expired medications not being removed from supply, which could pose risks to residents. Overall, while Piper Shores has commendable staffing and a strong ranking, families should be aware of the identified concerns.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Maine
#13/77
Top 16%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
8 → 8 violations
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 88 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
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • 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, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Maine avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

Sept 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) Form 10055, which included appeal rights and liability of payment,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) Form 10055, which included appeal rights and liability of payment, were provided at least 2 days prior to the resident's last covered day, for 2 of 3 residents whose Medicare Part A services were discontinued, and remained in the facility (#13, #21). Findings: 1. Resident #13 who remained in the facility, had a SNFABN which indicated he/she's last day of Skilled services was on 9/8/24. Resident #13 was not provided the SNFABN until 9/9/24, the day after services ended. 2. Resident #21 who remained in the facility, had a SNFABN which indicated he/she's last day of Skilled services was on 7/1/24. Resident #21 was not provided the SNFABN until 7/2/24, the day after services ended On 9/9/24 at 1:07 p.m., in an interview with the surveyor, the Social Worker stated she was unaware that the SNFABN notices should be provided to resident and/or resident representative 48 hours prior to services being terminated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 provide maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary and comf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary and comfortable interior on 2 of 2 units observed (Prouts Neck Walkway and [NAME] Beach Walkway). Findings: On 9/11/24 from 10:02 a.m., during a tour of the facility, the Director of Nursing confirmed the following: 1. Prouts Neck Walkway in the Personal Care room, the exhaust fan was coated with dust, the shower room had orange/brown color-stained tiles from the shower rail to the floor and the base of the shower had what appeared to be white tape with the corners lifting up and areas of discolored black and orange colors. 2. [NAME] Beach Walkway in the Personal Care room, the exhaust fan was coated with dust.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to be free of medication error rate of 5% or more. There was a total of 2 medication errors out of 29 opportunities. The medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to be free of medication error rate of 5% or more. There was a total of 2 medication errors out of 29 opportunities. The medication error rate was 6.9%. Finding: On 9/11/24 at approximately 8:47 a.m., a surveyor observed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA-M) prepare medications for Resident #9, which included physician orders for: Senna Plus (senna 8.6 mg (milligrams) with ducosate sodium 50 mg) Give 1 tablet by mouth twice a day for constipation and Aspirin 81 mg tablet, delayed release, give 1 tablet by mouth every day for heart health. The CNA-M dispensed one tablet of the Senna 8.6 mg and Aspirin 81 mg chewable into the medicine cup. At this time the surveyor intervened, questioning the dosage of tablets dispensed of both the Senna and Aspirin. The CNA-M reviewed the medications in the medicine cup and confirmed she did not dispense the correct medications of Senna Plus and the delayed release Aspirin. On 9/11/24 at approximately 9:45 a.m., the above findings were discussed with the Director of Nursing.
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 the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner relating to the ceiling air intakes vents and the over-the-stove exhaust h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner relating to the ceiling air intakes vents and the over-the-stove exhaust hood in the main kitchen on the third floor. Findings: On 9/9/24 at 8:40a.m., during the initial kitchen observation, a surveyor noted the two main air intake vents were covered with a moderate to heavy amount of dirt and debris. In addition, one-half of the over the stove exhaust hood was covered with a heavy amount of a grease like substance. At this time, the above was confirmed with the Food and Nutrition Director.
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, the facility failed to monitor and ensure that the CNA attended the required 12 hours of annual in-service education traini...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) employee education record review, the facility failed to monitor and ensure that the CNA attended the required 12 hours of annual in-service education training and the mandatory yearly training for dementia care 2 of 5 randomly selected CNAs employed greater than 1 year (CNA #3 and CNA #4). Findings: On 9/10/2024 and 9/11/2024, a surveyor reviewed the following employee education files: 1. CNA #3 was hired 5/7/2021. Review of CNA #3 Employee In-service/attendance 2ecords stated, she has 1 of the 12 hours required for continuing education and lacked evidence of dementia training for the year of 2023. 2. CNA #4 was hired 6/19/2017. Review of CNA #4 Employee In-service/attendance records stated, she has 2.25 of the 12 hours required for continuing education and lacked evidence of dementia training for the year 2023. On 9/11/2024 at 11:40 a.m., the above information was confirmed with the Director of Human Resources.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all facility staff maintain training in c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all facility staff maintain training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for Healthcare Providers. Findings: On [DATE] at 10:11 a.m., the Staff Development Coordinator stated the facility does not track or ensure their staff including the Licensed Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) have an active CPR certification and that CPR is not a requirement. On [DATE] at 10:11 a.m., the facility provided documentation of current CPR certifications for 10 of 17 Registered Nurses (RNs), 2 of 7 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), 9 of 44 CNAs, 1 of 2 Personal Support Staff (PSS), 1 of 3 Activity staff, and 0 of 2 administrative personnel. On [DATE] at 10:53 a.m., during an interview, the DON, stated he himself was not CPR certified and hasn't been since he is not working the floor. In addition, he confirmed there is 1 of the 36 residents who is Full Code and could potentially require CPR however, all residents are at risk for choking. Facility Policy's and Procedure and Job Descriptions: Policy for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), revised on [DATE], under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines States, Staff will maintain current CPR certification for health care providers through a CPR provider who evaluates proper technique through in person demonstration of skills. CPR certification which includes an online knowledge component yet still requires in person skills demonstrations to obtain certification or recertification is also acceptable. The facilities Job Description for a Charge Nurse, dated 7/2023, under qualifications: states, Current CPR certification/IV certification desired. On [DATE], at approximately 11:00 a.m. the above information was confirmed with the Director of Nursing and the Staff Development Coordinator.
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 observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that expired over the counter medications were removed from t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that expired over the counter medications were removed from the supply that were available for use in 1 of 1 medication storage room and failed to ensure the medication room refrigerator was maintained at an acceptable temperature range for 15 of 39 days. In addition, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly by having an unlocked, unattended medication cart allowing residents and unauthorized persons access to medications on 1 of 3 survey days. Findings: 1. On [DATE] at 1:50 p.m., during a medication supply cabinet review with the Registered Nurse (RN #1), and a surveyor observed the following expired over the counter medications: 2 unopened bottles of Healthstar Aspirin 325 milligrams (mg) with an expiration date of 1/24, 4 unopened bottles of Gericare Aspirin 325 mg with an expiration date of 4/24 and 2 unopened bottles of Gericare Multivitamin with an expiration date of 8/24. 2. On [DATE] at 2:00 p.m., a surveyor and RN #1 observed the medication storage room refrigerator on the [NAME] unit. The refrigerator contained insulin, immunizations and controlled liquid medications. A temperature log sheet, located on the counter above the refrigerator dated for the month of August and [DATE], states, Acceptable temperature range 36 - 46 degrees Fahrenheit and The temperature of each medication refrigerator must be checked daily and recorded on this log. If an out-of-range temperature is found, notify Clinical Engineering and document your response. A review of the temperature log sheet had multiple days when temperatures were documented below 36 degrees Fahrenheit and lacked evidence of documentation of action taken to correct the low temperatures. The refrigerator temperatures were as follows: On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 34 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] documentation of 35 degrees Fahrenheit On [DATE] at 2:10 p.m., a surveyor confirmed the above findings with the Director of Nursing. 3. On [DATE] at 9:28 a.m., a surveyor observed the medication cart in the hallway outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The cart was unlocked and there was no staff member near the cart. A surveyor opened 2 drawers of the medication cart and observed over the counter and prescription medications labeled for residents. At 9:35 a.m., (7 minutes later) the Certified Nursing Assistant - Med Tech (CNA-M) returned to the medication cart. During an interview with a surveyor. The CNA-M acknowledged that the medication cart should have been locked. On [DATE] at 10:00 a.m., a surveyor discussed the finding of the unlocked, unattended medication cart with the Director of Nursing.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to transmit a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) electronically to the State MDS database within 14 days of completion date for 1 of 2 system se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to transmit a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) electronically to the State MDS database within 14 days of completion date for 1 of 2 system selected residents reviewed for Resident Assessment (Resident #31). Finding: Resident #31's quarterly MDS was completed on 7/15/24. This assessment was required to be electronically submitted to the State MDS database within 14 days after completion, as of 9/10/24 the MDS had not submitted to the State MDS database. On 9/10/24 at 12:04 p.m., during an interview, the MDS Coordinator stated that she will submit Resident #31's quarterly MDS today and was unaware that it wasn't transferred until the surveyor asked about it.
Jul 2023 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 ensure resident's dignity by requiring a resident wear a clothing protector after stating that she/he does not want to wear one on 1 of 4 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's dignity by requiring a resident wear a clothing protector after stating that she/he does not want to wear one on 1 of 4 observations in the dining room. (#19). Findings: On 7/11/2023 at 8:10 a.m. in the dining room, a surveyor observed Resident #19 being wheeled into place at a table by a staff member and placed a clothing protector on the resident. Resident #19 stated No, I don't want to wear this. Staff member said, Oh you have to wear this, you would not want to get your sweater all dirty. On 7/11/23 the dignity issue was confirmed by the surveyor at the time of the observation the with the Infection Preventionist and at 5:00 p.m., the dignity issue was discussed with the Administrator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible to 1 of 40 sampled residents observed for 1 of 3 days of survey (Resident #22). Findings: On 7/10/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible to 1 of 40 sampled residents observed for 1 of 3 days of survey (Resident #22). Findings: On 7/10/2023 at approximately 11:30a.m. a surveyor observed Resident #22 sitting in her/his wheel chair with the brakes on, approximately 6 feet away from her/his bed and the call bell was lying on the resident's bed. Resident is not able to move wheel chair on her own. This was called to the attention of and confirmed with CNA#1 and reported to RN#1. and confirmed with the Administrator at 12:15p.m.
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 observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that a residents careplan was implemented, for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for suicidal ideation ( #39). Findings...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that a residents careplan was implemented, for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for suicidal ideation ( #39). Findings; On 7/11/2023 a surveyor reviewed resident #39's care plan and noted: Category: 9 Behavior Problem lists Do not leave a gait belt in [Resident #39s] room. On 7/11/2023 at 12:17 pm a surveyor observed CNA#3 exit Resident #39s private bathroom with a gait belt. On 7/11/2023 at 12:40 pm a surveyor interviewed CNA#3 who confirmed that the gait belt was retrieved from resident's bathroom. CNA #3 confirmed that the gait belt is normally found in resident's room and they were unaware of the care plan stating gait belt was not be left in the room. On 7/11/2023 at 12:46 pm a surveyor interviewed CNA#1 and CNA#4 together and both confirmed the gait belt was normally stored in resident's room. They were both unaware it was in the care plan to remove this item from the room after use. On 7/11/2023 at approximately 4:00 pm, an interview was conducted with Resident #39, he/she was able to confirm that the gait belt is left in his/her room, and was able to point out the places that staff leave it. On 7/11/2023 at 3:45 pm a surveyor confirmed with Clinical Assessment Manager that the identified items in Resident #39's care plan was not removed per their policy and resident #39's care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to follow up on a pharmacist recommendation timely, and failed to keep all copies of Medication Regimen Reviews (MRR) in the resident's perm...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to follow up on a pharmacist recommendation timely, and failed to keep all copies of Medication Regimen Reviews (MRR) in the resident's permanent health record for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medications (Resident #24). Finding: On 7/11/23, Resident #24's clinical record was reviewed. On 7/11/23 at 3:07 p.m. a surveyor requested from the Clinical Assessment Manager (CAM), the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) MRR recommendations completed in May of 2023 as it was not able to be located in the resident's permanent record. On 7/12/23 at 10:27 a.m., the CAM provided a surveyor with the CP MRR recommendation completed by the CP on 5/3/23. Between 5/1/23 and 5/3/23, the CP completed a Consultant Report comment that indicated, continues to be at moderate or high risk of falls. Continues with foley [a flexible tube that drains urine from the bladder] - which is now chronic? Still on tamsulosin [a medication to help with urinary retention] with recommendation that indicated, Please consider dc (discontinuing) the tamsulosin if plan is to keep foley long term. This resident has been taking, as ordered by the Medical Provider, tamsulosin 0.4 milligrams by mouth every evening for a diagnosis of BPH with urinary obstruction [benign prostatic hyperplasia, or enlarged prostate, with urinary retention]. The clinical record lacked evidence that this recommendation was addressed by the Medical Provider as of 7/12/23. On 7/12/23 at 10:27 a.m., during an interview with the CAM, a surveyor confirmed this finding. The CAM stated she doesn't recall seeing the recommendation from the CP. On 7/12/23 the CAM stated she printed the original CP's MRR recommendation; however, the recommendation was not addressed by the Medical Provider, or could not be located at the facility or in the resident's permanent record.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

2. On 7/11/2023 at 12:01 pm a surveyor observed both CNA#5 and CNA#1 assist resident #17 providing perineal care while wearing gloves. They did not perform hand hygiene or remove the gloves before the...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 7/11/2023 at 12:01 pm a surveyor observed both CNA#5 and CNA#1 assist resident #17 providing perineal care while wearing gloves. They did not perform hand hygiene or remove the gloves before they helped resident #17; finish dressing, arrange items on the table, smooth the hair, make the bed, and tidy up the room. On 7/11/2023 at 12:15 pm a surveyor interviewed CNA#5 and asked when hand hygiene should be performed. CNA#5 said after pericare and realized after she said this that she did not do this while being observed. On 7/11/2023 at 12:25 pm a surveyor interviewed CNA#1 and asked when hand hygiene should be performed. CNA#1 also stated after pericare and also realized she did not do this while being observed. On 7/11/2023 at 3:46 pm, the above was confirmed with Clinical Assessment Manager. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its water management program was implemented and effective to prevent the growth of Legionella or other waterborne pathogens. This has the potential to affect all residents. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene post perineal care for 1 of 1 resident observed during care. (# 17). Finding: 1. A review of the facility's water management policies and procedures, Control Locations Management Log, stated Microbial sampling to validate the water management program, with specific testing for Legionella, to be completed at a minimum frequency of quarterly. A review of laboratory reports from the facility's contracted water management company indicated the last testing for Legionella bacteria was completed on 9/15/21. On 7/11/23 at 2:00 p.m., in an interview with the surveyor, the Administrator, the Manager of Plant Operations, and the Director of Plant Operations, Maintenance and Security, confirmed that testing to monitor the effectiveness of the water management program had not been completed since 2021, which was not in compliance with company policy.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) Form 10055, which included appeal rights and liability of payment,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) Form 10055, which included appeal rights and liability of payment, were provided at least 2 days prior to the resident's last covered day, for 3 of 3 residents whose Medicare Part A services were discontinued, and remained in the facility (#39, #201, #202). Findings: 1. Resident #39's Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services ended on 7/5/2023. The medical record lacked evidence that Resident #39 or his/her legal representative was provided a SNFABN when the Medicare A coverage for skilled services was discontinued. The resident remained living in the facility. 2. Resident #201's Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services ended on 4/21/2023. The medical record lacked evidence that Resident #201 or his/her legal representative was provided a SNFABN when the Medicare A coverage for skilled services was discontinued. The resident remained living in the facility. 3. Resident #202's Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services ended on 5/15/2023. The medical record lacked evidence that Resident #202 or his/her legal representative was provided a SNFABN when the Medicare A coverage for skilled services was discontinued. The resident remained living in the facility. On 7/12/2023 at 12:00 p.m., in an interview with a surveyor, the Licensed Clinical Social Worker confirmed that the facility did not deliver a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) when Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services ended and the residents remained in the facility.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a written transfer/discharge notice, which included information regarding appeal rights and the name and address of the Office of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a written transfer/discharge notice, which included information regarding appeal rights and the name and address of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, to residents or their representative for 1 of 1 sampled residents transferred/discharged by the facility to an acute care hospital (Resident #11). Finding: On review of the clinical record, the surveyor noted Resident #11 was transferred to an acute care facility on 5/2/2023 for evaluation and treatment of complications associated with an indwelling urinary catheter, and again on 6/10/2023, for evaluation and treatment of altered mental status and abdominal pain. The clinical record lacked evidence that the facility had provided a transfer/discharge notice to the resident and his/her representative. On 7/12/2023 at 3:20 p.m., in an interview with a surveyor, the facility's Director of Nursing, Clinical Assessment Manager, and Licensed Clinical Social Worker confirmed transfer/discharge notices are not provided to residents and their representatives, upon transfer to an acute care facility. In addition, it was confirmed that the facility is not providing notice of resident transfers/discharges to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to issue a bed hold notice for a facility initiated transfer/discharge to a resident, or his/her legal representative, for 1 of 1 sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to issue a bed hold notice for a facility initiated transfer/discharge to a resident, or his/her legal representative, for 1 of 1 sampled residents transferred to an acute care facility (#11). Finding: Documentation in Resident #11's clinical record indicated that he/she was transferred to an acute hospital on 5/2/2023 and returned to the facility the same day. The resident was again transferred to an acute hospital on 6/10/2023 and subsequently admitted . The clinical record lacked evidence that the facility issued a written bed hold policy/notice to the resident and/or legal representative for either transfer. On 7/12/2023 at 2:25 p.m., in an interview with a surveyor, the Clinical Assessment Manager stated bed hold notices are not provided to Life Care Members (residents of the facility who enter into a separate agreement upon admission to independent living) at the time of transfer to an acute care hospital because they will always have a bed held for them. On 7/12/2023 at 3:20 p.m., in an interview with a surveyor, the facility's Director of Nursing, Clinical Assessment Manager, and Licensed Clinical Social Worker confirmed that when a resident is transferred to an acute care hospital, bed hold notices are not provided to non-Life Care Members, or their legal representative, and that their beds may be held if paid for privately.
Oct 2021 3 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

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan by an interdisciplinary team (IDT), that included, to the extent possible, participation of the resident a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan by an interdisciplinary team (IDT), that included, to the extent possible, participation of the resident and/or his/her representative to review and revise the care plan after each assessment for 1 of 12 sampled residents (#16) Finding: 1. Review of Resident #16's medical record, the surveyor noted Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Review assessments, dated 2/18/21 and 8/9/21 were completed. The medical record lacked evidence that a care plan meeting has been held by the IDT for the 2/18/21 and 8/9/21 assessments. On 10/13/21 at 2:43 p.m., in an interview with Life Services, she confirmed IDT meeting were not held for the above assessments.
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 the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner for the thawing of frozen meat, the ceiling vents, and use of the sanitizi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner for the thawing of frozen meat, the ceiling vents, and use of the sanitizing solution buckets on 2 of 3 survey days (10/12/21, 10/13/21). Findings: On 10/12/21 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., a surveyor conducted the initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager at which time the following were observed: 1. A pan of thawing pork tenderloins was observed placed in a triple bowl sink with water running over the meat. The sink was noted to be without an air gap. At that time, the finding was discussed with the Dietary Manager, who confirmed the meat should have been placed to thaw in the refrigerator or in the food prep sink, which is equipped with an air gap. 2. Ceiling vents above the food preparation areas were noted to be dirty/dusty with dust extending onto the ceiling. The finding was confirmed with the Dietary manager at the time of the observation. 3. The surveyor requested staff check the concentration of the sanitizer solution used in the bucket in the food preparation area. A staff member pulled out a test strip package which appeared damaged. The staff stated the test result should range between 200-400 ppm (parts per million), and stated it was a multiquat solution. Upon testing, the result of the solution was 50 ppm. On 10/12/21 at approximately 3:00 p.m., the findings were discussed with the Administrator. On 10/13/21 at 10:35 a.m., the Dietary Manager confirmed that testing and documentation of sanitizing solution in buckets is not being completed by staff, and that the facility did not have a specific policy for testing and documentation of sanitizing solution.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on an interview and review of the facility's quarterly Quality Assurance meeting attendance sheets (which incorporates Quality Assessment and Assurance, QAA), the facility failed to present evid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on an interview and review of the facility's quarterly Quality Assurance meeting attendance sheets (which incorporates Quality Assessment and Assurance, QAA), the facility failed to present evidence that a quarterly meeting was held for 1 of 3 quarters. Finding: On 10/12/21at 2:30 p.m., a surveyor requested a copy of the attendance sheets for the QAA quarterly meetings. The Chief Operations Officer (COO) provided the surveyor with meeting attendance sheet dated 6/4/21, during an interview with a surveyor, the COO stated that she has no evidence to show that a quarterly QAA Meeting was held in April 202l.
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
  • • 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.
Concerns
  • • 19 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 Piper Shores's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PIPER SHORES 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 Piper Shores Staffed?

CMS rates PIPER SHORES'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 Piper Shores?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at PIPER SHORES during 2021 to 2024. These included: 15 with potential for harm and 4 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Piper Shores?

PIPER SHORES is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 40 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SCARBOROUGH, Maine.

How Does Piper Shores Compare to Other Maine Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maine, PIPER SHORES'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 Piper Shores?

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 Piper Shores Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PIPER SHORES 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 Piper Shores Stick Around?

PIPER SHORES 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 Piper Shores Ever Fined?

PIPER SHORES 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 Piper Shores on Any Federal Watch List?

PIPER SHORES 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.

PIPER SHORES

15 PIPER ROAD, SCARBOROUGH, ME 04074 | (207) 883-8700

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
19
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing
  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025