CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
The Center for Extended Care at Amherst has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. Ranked #211 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, this places it in the bottom half statewide, although it ranks #2 out of 5 in Hampshire County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement in some areas, having reduced the number of issues from 13 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, but still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a concern, with only 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 43%, which is close to the state average. Alarmingly, there have been critical incidents, including a resident who died after falling from the bed when staff failed to provide the required two-person assistance, and another resident experienced worsening of a pressure ulcer due to inadequate care. While there are some strengths, such as average quality measures, the overall picture raises significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #211/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $28,915 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Massachusetts average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Massachusetts average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Massachusetts avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had right sided weakness from a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had right sided weakness from a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent deterioration of a pressure ulcer (localized ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services per professional standards of practice related to monitoring the use of Vitamin D (vitamin that hel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that resident meal trays were served timely fo...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-storage for resident food/fluids remaine...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled employee personnel files, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse pol...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
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
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for care, the Facility failed to ensure he/she w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with ambulation and was usually continent, the Facility failed to ensure staff ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
11 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence for the facility resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 notify the Physician/Non-Physician Practitioner (NPP/ Nurse Practit...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review the facility failed to ensure that a homelike environment was maintained for residents in...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were accurately coded...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services to achieve or maintain blad...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately implement a psychotropic medication (medication that affects brain activity) gradual dose reduction (GDR) as recommended by the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to re-evaluate a performance improvement plan (PIP) when the identified interventions were no longer making progress toward the identified goa...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the required members were included in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintained a clean and sanitary facility kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Specific...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revised August 2019, indicated:
-All personnel shall follow the han...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment, according to the required Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process, for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff 1. assessed residents for eligibility to offer a pneumococcal vaccination and 2. administered a pneumococcal vaccination when ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure recommended COVID-19 vaccination was offered to one Staff Member (#1) out of one staff member sampled.
Specifically, for Staff Membe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
10 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained the dignity during a meal for one Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0635
(Tag F0635)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff obtained orders for monitoring an incision site after return from the hospital one Resident (#43), out of a sample of 25 r...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the Resident and/or Resident's Representative with a copy of the Resident's baseline care plan for one Resident (#...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one Resident (#...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of a facility policy titled Supporting Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised March 2018, indicated that residents...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documented evidence that preventative skin treatments and re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
b) On the Dharma Unit, in three of the three unit refrigerators the following was found:
On 3/13/23 at 4:26 P.M., the surveyor, Nurse #3, and Therapeutic Activities Director observed the dining room ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 the Dharma Unit (the Dementia Special Care Unit-DSCU) the facility failed to ensure soiled and clean linen carts were appropriately secured and stored to prevent access to clean and potentially ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Minor procedural issue · 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 its staff identified the need for a Significant Change in St...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #35 was admitted in August 2018.
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 1/26/23 indicated the Resident was understood a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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 F0691
(Tag F0691)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, for one of three residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outside the bod...
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
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outsi...
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 43% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $28,915 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 34 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $28,915 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Center For Extended Care At Amherst's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Massachusetts, 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 Center For Extended Care At Amherst Staffed?
CMS rates CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Center For Extended Care At Amherst?
State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Center For Extended Care At Amherst?
CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST 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 SHIMON LEFKOWITZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 130 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in AMHERST, Massachusetts.
How Does Center For Extended Care At Amherst Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Center For Extended Care At Amherst?
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?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 below-average staffing rating.
Is Center For Extended Care At Amherst Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Center For Extended Care At Amherst Stick Around?
CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Massachusetts 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 Center For Extended Care At Amherst Ever Fined?
CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has been fined $28,915 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,368. 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 Center For Extended Care At Amherst on Any Federal Watch List?
CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST 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.