BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about care quality. It ranks #273 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #12 out of 15 in Barnstable County, meaning only a few local options are worse. The facility is reportedly improving, with issues decreasing from 17 in 2023 to 3 in 2025. However, staffing remains a concern, earning only 1 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 67%, far exceeding the state average of 39%. There have been serious incidents noted, including a critical finding where a resident with a history of inappropriate behavior was found in a compromising situation with another resident, which indicates a failure to protect residents from potential harm. Additionally, the facility has faced challenges in monitoring the care needs of residents, such as failing to appropriately assess a wound for one resident and neglecting to document essential safety measures for others. While there are some strengths, such as a trend toward fewer issues, the overall picture suggests families should approach this facility with caution.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #273/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $48,575 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 41 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
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Massachusetts average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
21pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
19 points above Massachusetts average of 48%
The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in a safe and secure manner as required. Specifically, the facility failed to en...
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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable env...
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 interviews and observations, the facility failed to ensure it provided a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
4 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who had significant cognitive impairment, was unaware of his/her care needs and resided on the dementia unit, ...
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
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 review and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2) who had been recently admitted to the fa...
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 interviews and records reviewed for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) the Facility failed to ensure they obtained and maintained evidence that their investigation was conducted in ...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had significant cognitive impairment, was unaware of his/her care needs and resided on the dementia unit,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0551
(Tag F0551)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#114) representative, as designated by the Resident, was able to make medical decisions for the Resident, in a sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for significant change, for one Resident (#42), from a total sample of 25 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
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 transmit timely, through completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) asses...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, resident centered, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and physician's orders by not a...
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 observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided respiratory care consistent with facility policy for three Residents (#14, #35, and #46). Specifically,...
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 record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure targeted behaviors and signs and symptoms of adverse reaction/side effects were adequately monitored to evaluate th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct initial or annual comprehensive assessments through completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for four Residents (#1, #56, #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct quarterly assessments timely through completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for seven Residents (#62, #83, #74, #6, #29, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately completed to reflect the status for four Residents (#115, #116, #24, and #103).
...
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed for two Residents (#11 and #66), to ensure that equipment was in good working order. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
1. Resident #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
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 F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who upon admission was assessed as being nutritionally compromised and was noted to be at risk for further de...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2021
21 deficiencies
3 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure services provided by the facility met p...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide treatment and services that adhere to professional st...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#25), out of a total of 24 sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for the residents on Unit 2.
Findings include:
On 10/29/21 at 12:05 P.M., the surveyor observed 16 residents in the d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident's (#73) right to privacy was maintained and that discussions regarding his/her health status occurred in priva...
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 review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised after three falls for one Resident (#73), out of a total sample of 24 resid...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) for one Resident (#33), out of a total sample of 24...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on document review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff were assessed to have the competencies and skill set required to provide safe and effective nursing care ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the attending Physician reviewed and addressed the identified pharmacological irregularities for one Resident (#33),...
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 and interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to conduct COVID-19 testing in a manner consistent with current standards of practice and follow the facility's policy and proc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews, policy review, grievance book review, and review of Resident Council/Food Committee Minutes, the facility failed to ensure that grievances brought forward through Resident Council...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy review, Resident Council/Food Committee minutes review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that grievances related to lukewarm food temperature, poor food quality, inaccurat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure for five Residents (#17, #31, #49, #66, and #77), out of a total sample of 24 residents, that Comprehensive Ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and observations, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided an environment that was free from acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy review, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff developed and implemented a comprehensive, person centered care plan to address four Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, and test tray results, the facility failed to ensure that staff served food that is palatable and at an appetizing temperature on 2 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on personnel record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the activity program was directed by a qualified activity professional.
Findings include:
On 11/2/21 at 10:03 A.M., ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews and documentation review, the facility failed to designate a person who met the minimum qualifications to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services to ensure the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on Facility Assessment review, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to identify resources and thoroughly assess its resident population to determine the necessary care...
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 ensure that Nurse Staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors.
On 11/3/21 at 10:05 A.M....
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: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $48,575 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 41 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $48,575 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility Staffed?
CMS rates BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 21 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 86%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility?
State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 35 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility?
BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by INTEGRITUS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 142 certified beds and approximately 130 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BOURNE, Massachusetts.
How Does Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY 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 1-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 Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility Stick Around?
Staff turnover at BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY is high. At 67%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 86%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility Ever Fined?
BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY has been fined $48,575 across 1 penalty action. The Massachusetts average is $33,565. 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 Bourne Manor Extended Care Facility on Any Federal Watch List?
BOURNE MANOR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY 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.