ST PATRICK'S MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Patrick's Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided. It ranks #251 out of 338 nursing homes in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half among facilities in the state. The facility's performance is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. While staffing is a relative strength with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 31%, which is better than the state average, the overall care quality is below average at 2/5 stars. Notably, there have been serious incidents, including a resident who was not given CPR when required due to a misinterpretation of their medical directives and another resident who suffered a femur fracture during a transfer when staff did not follow proper safety protocols. These findings highlight both the facility's staffing stability and the critical need for improvement in care practices.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #251/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $33,157 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below Massachusetts average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Massachusetts average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
15pts below 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 29 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 Advance Directives (a written statement about a reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#232), out of a total sample of 36 residents, was free from physical restraints.
Specifically, the...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. Resident #556 was admitted to the facility in December 2024 with diagnoses including Adult Failure to Thrive, Chronic Kidney ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that assistive devices to maintain hearing and enhance communication were utilized for one Resident (#234), out of a t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services relative to enter...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services that were consi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored in a secure manner in one medication storage room (Sacred Heart Unit) out of four medication storage roo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice re...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a written notification of transfer or discharge was complet...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Bed Hold Policy Notice was issued upon transfer to the hospital for one Resident (#156) out of a total sample of 36 Residents.
S...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #254 was admitted to the facility in September 2023, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease and age-related os...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
A resident was harmed · 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), whose Comprehensive Plan of Care and...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), whose primary spoken language was no...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy, when on 4/08/24 during the e...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
3 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 observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity dur...
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
Based on interviews, policy and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician of a significant change in condition for one Resident (#28) out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Specifica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards and implement their policy relative to Transmission-Based Precautions ([TBP] Iso...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
1 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
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
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), whose Advanced Directives indicated ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
4 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 F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), who was alert, oriented and made his/her own health care decisions, the Facility failed to ensure that he/she...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3), whose admission physici...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed upon admission as being at risk for elopement, the Facility failed to ensure his/her safety ...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · 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 #2), whose Hospital Discharge Summary indi...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
6 deficiencies
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 observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that staff implemented the care plan, related to transfer status, for one Resident (# 172) out of 35 sampled residents....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #95, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided adequate supervision and an environment free of accidents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff reviewed the risk and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative, and obtain an informed consent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff maintained safe storage of food, documented food temperatures at meals, maintained appropriate hand hygien...
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
2. For Resident #159, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately recorded weekly and daily weights ordered by the physician.
Resident #159 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 with a dia...
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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff implemented its COVID-19 surveillance plan for one Resident (#124) out of three applicable sampled residents relative to...
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
- • 31% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $33,157 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $33,157 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is St Patrick'S Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST PATRICK'S MANOR 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 St Patrick'S Manor Staffed?
CMS rates ST PATRICK'S MANOR's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Patrick'S Manor?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at ST PATRICK'S MANOR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 22 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 St Patrick'S Manor?
ST PATRICK'S MANOR is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CARMELITE SISTERS FOR THE AGED & INFIRM, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 333 certified beds and approximately 264 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a large facility located in FRAMINGHAM, Massachusetts.
How Does St Patrick'S Manor Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, ST PATRICK'S MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Patrick'S Manor?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is St Patrick'S Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST PATRICK'S MANOR 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 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 St Patrick'S Manor Stick Around?
ST PATRICK'S MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 St Patrick'S Manor Ever Fined?
ST PATRICK'S MANOR has been fined $33,157 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,410. 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 St Patrick'S Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
ST PATRICK'S MANOR 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.