POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Poet's Seat Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #235 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #2 out of 3 in Franklin County, meaning only one nearby option is rated higher. Although the facility is on an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 7 to 6 over the past year, it still has serious deficiencies, including failing to manage medications and pain properly for residents, which can lead to increased discomfort and distress. Staffing is a significant weakness, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 67%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 39%. Additionally, while the facility incurred average fines of $8,525, the serious incidents, such as not notifying a provider about a resident's medication issue and failing to follow up on behavioral health care for another resident, raise serious red flags for families considering this home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #235/338
- 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
- $8,525 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 43 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)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
21pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
19 points above Massachusetts average of 48%
The Ugly 43 deficiencies on record
May 2025
6 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Provider was contacted regarding a...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided in accord...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#32) out of a total sample of...
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to adequately assess the urinary status for one Resident (#12) of three applicable residents, out a total sample of 16 reside...
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to accurately assess the urinary status on one comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one Resident (#12) of three...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was severely cognitively impaired and had a history of disrobing in public and intrusive wandering, and ...
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 two of three sampled residents (Resident #1, who was known to intrusively wander and disrobed in public areas, and Resident #2 who was known to exhibit in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
5 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and/or a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) we...
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** Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment that was free of accide...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the breakfast meal was served at a palatable temperature on one Unit (South Unit) out of two units observed.
Spe...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food served to the residents was prepared...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Smoking Policies
(Tag F0926)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, policy, and record review, the facility failed to implement smoking policies as required for one Resident (#49) out of one applicable Resident, out of a total sample of 15 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. On 8/28/23 at 8:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #2 enter a room located on the South Unit with an isolation sign on the outside of the door indicating the following:
Staff and Providers must:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
28 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provide behavioral health care and services for one Resident (#26), out of 17 sampled residents. Specifically...
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 observations, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff protected the privacy of one Resident (#48), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff answered a call bell in a timely manner for one Resident (#54) who required physical assistance from staff, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required transfer documentation to a receiving provider for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 its staff provided the required notices of transfer or disch...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 its staff provided the required notices of bed-hold policy a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in November 2021.
On 11/2/22 a review of the clinical record was conducted and indic...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two Residents (#34 and #44), out of a total sampl...
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
2. For Resident #28, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed a care plan relative to the Resident's impaired mobility and limited range of motion due to his/her contractures (a shortening an...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided resident treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided necessary foot care and treatment for one Resident (#36), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Sp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided services relative to limited range of motion for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled re...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards relative to smoking for one Resident (#23), out of a total of ...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided appropriate care and services for an indw...
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
2. For Resident #48, the facility failed to ensure its staff addressed a Consultant Pharmacist recommendation as well as failed to retain records of monthly medication regimen reviews in the medical r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain lab work as ordered by the Physician for one Resident (#34), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff assisted one Resident (#34) with the process for obtaining dentures, out of a total sample of 17 residents.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff maintained a medical record that included documentation that residents were offered and received the pneumococcal immunization ...
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: 1.) Develop a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its residents, and 2.) Maintain a medical record that included documentation that residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview the facility failed to ensure staff developed written policies related to COVID-19 vaccination for its staff.
Findings include:
During the survey at the entrance conference on 10/26...
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 interviews, observations and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its residents knew how to file a grievance (complaint or concern).
Findings include:
Review of the facility policy t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022.
Review of the clinical record did not provide evidence a baseline care plan was written that included the minimum information necessary to properly car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022.
Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/14/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance of one care giver for bed mobility, locomotion, dress...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#3) was free from significant medication errors, out of a total of 17 sampled residents.
Findings include:
Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff properly secured and stored prescription medication, as required. Specifically facility staff failed to 1.) keep a box of em...
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 ensure that its staff stored food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Specifically, the facility staff: 1) did...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** [NAME], [NAME]
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained complete, accurate and re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1.) ensure staff reviewed their Infection Control Policies and Procedures at least annually to ensure policies and procedures ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 43 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER'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 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 43 deficiencies at POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 38 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?
POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 EPHRAM LAHASKY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 63 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GREENFIELD, Massachusetts.
How Does Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (2 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 (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 67%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. 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 Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $8,525 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,164. 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 Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER 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.