RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR

1675 NORTH MAIN STREET, LANCASTER, MA 01523 (978) 365-4537
For profit - Limited Liability company 82 Beds MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#49 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

River Terrace Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Lancaster, Massachusetts, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #49 out of 338 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 50 in Worcester County, meaning only eight local options are better. The facility's performance trend is stable, with the same number of issues reported in the last two years. However, staffing received a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 38%, which is slightly better than the state average. While the facility has average RN coverage and received an average of $8,788 in fines, which is concerning but not excessively high, it has had some serious incidents. For example, a resident was given another person's blood pressure medication, leading to a change in condition that required additional treatment. Additionally, the facility failed to implement a care plan for a resident needing a specialized boot to relieve pressure on their heel, which could lead to further health issues. Overall, while there are strengths such as excellent health inspection ratings, families should be aware of the staffing challenges and medication errors when considering this facility.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In Massachusetts
#49/338
Top 14%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Holding Steady
1 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$8,788 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 1 issues

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 (38%)

    10 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $8,788

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
May 2025 1 deficiency 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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure he/she was free from a significant medication error, when on 02/25/25, Nurse #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure he/she was free from a significant medication error, when on 02/25/25, Nurse #1 administered another resident's blood pressure medication to him/her in error. Resident #1 later experienced a change in condition, was lethargic, and his/her blood pressure was low, for which he/she required treatment and increased monitoring by nursing until his/her blood pressure stabilized. Findings include: The Facility Policy, titled Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors, dated as revised 02/2023, indicated medication errors were defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biologicals which was not in accordance with physician's orders, and included administration of the wrong medication, and administration to the wrong resident. The Policy also indicated that a significant medication error was defined as one in which the resident required treatment with a prescription medication. The Facility Policy, titled Administering Medications, dated as revised 04/2019, indicated: -The nurse administering the medications would verify the resident's identity before giving the medication to him/her, and methods of identifying the resident included checking his/her identification wrist band, checking the photograph attached to his/her medical record, and if necessary, verifying the resident identification with other Facility personnel. -The nurse administering medications would check the medication label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, and right route of administration before giving the medication. According to MayoClinic.org, low blood pressure is a blood pressure reading lower than 90 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) for the top number or 60 mm Hg for the bottom number, and extreme low blood pressure can lead to a condition called shock, which can be life threatening. Review of the Facility's Incident Report Form, dated 03/03/25, indicated that on 02/25/25, at 03:00 P.M., nursing staff noticed that Resident #1 was lethargic, had difficulty standing while transferring, and his/her blood pressure was 84/46 mm Hg (hypotensive). The Incident Report indicated Resident #1's spouse was present, and said he/she thought Resident #1 might have been given his/her roommate's (Resident #2's) medication, in error. The Incident Report indicated that it was determined that Nurse #1 had administered Resident #2's scheduled 1:00 P.M., Hydralazine (lowers blood pressure) 30 milligrams (mg) to Resident #1, in error. On 02/25/25, Resident #1 and Resident #2 were roommates. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included Left femur fracture, dementia, acute diastolic heart failure (left heart ventricle is stiff and does not relax properly between heartbeats. Diastolic heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow) and Atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm). Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 02/25/25, indicated he/she did not have a physician's order for Hydralazine. Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in January 2025, diagnoses included hypertension. Review of Resident #2's MAR, dated 02/25/25 indicated he/she had an order for Hydralazine Hydrochloride, 10 milligrams (mg) tablet, administer three tablets (30 mg) by mouth, four times daily. Review of Resident #1's Blood Pressure Summary Report, dated 12/12/25 through 12/24/25 indicated that during this time period, his/her lowest measured blood pressure was 104/51 mm Hg. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Progress Note, dated 02/25/25, timed 05:28 P.M., indicated he/she received Hydralazine 30 mg (in error), his/her Blood Pressure was low, the physician was notified, nursing placed him/her in the Trendelenburg (feet elevated) position, intravenous (IV, anything that is administered into vein) fluids were initiated, and nursing initiated increased monitoring of his/her Blood Pressure. During a telephone interview on 05/05/25 at 10:28 A.M., Nurse #1 said he did not work on the East Wing very often, and was not familiar with the unit Resident #1 and Resident #2 lived on. Nurse #1 said that on 02/25/25 at 01:30 P.M., he prepared Resident #2's scheduled Hydralazine dose, and was about to administer it, when a staff member interrupted him because another resident (Resident #3) needed assistance. Nurse #1 said he placed the medication cup with Resident #2's Hydralazine in the top drawer of the medication cart, locked it, and went to attended to Resident #3. Nurse #1 said when he returned to the medication cart at 02:00 P.M., he took the Hydralazine out from the medication cart drawer, and looked at the computer screen to see which resident the Hydralazine was intended for. Nurse #1 said he must have clicked (signed off in the electronic MAR) that he had completed Resident #2's medication pass, and therefore Resident #1's profile was on the screen. Nurse #1 said he did not review the medications against the MAR at that time, and went into the room, saw Resident #1 and administered the Hydralazine (that was ordered for Resident #2) to him/her, in error. During an interview on 05/05/25 at 11:40 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said she was familiar with Resident #1, that he/she usually transferred easily with one staff assist, however on 02/25/25 at 03:00 P.M., he/she was drowsy and had a hard time standing, so she was not able to transfer him/her alone. CNA #1 said Resident #1's spouse was visiting and asked her if Resident #1 had been started on a new blood pressure medication, and told her that Nurse #1 had given Resident #1 something for his/her blood pressure earlier that afternoon. CNA #1 said she immediately notified Unit Manager #1 that something was wrong. During an interview on 05/05/25 at 08:10 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said that on 02/25/25 at 03:00 P.M., CNA #1 notified him that Resident #1 was not feeling well. Unit Manager #1 said he went to assess Resident #1, and his/her spouse said that earlier, Nurse #1 had given him/her three small white pills that he/she had not gotten before, and suspected they were someone else's medication. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1 was lethargic, weak, and his/her blood pressure was low. Unit Manager #1 said he cross checked Resident #1's and Resident #2's MARs and saw that Resident #2 was scheduled to receive Hydralazine, three 10 mg tablets, and that they were small white tablets. Unit Manager #1 said he asked Nurse #1 if he had accidentally administered Resident #2's Hydralazine to Resident #1, and said Nurse #1 then realized that he had made a medication error. During an interview on 05/05/25 at 10:52 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that on 02/25/25 at 03:00 P.M., Unit Manager #1 told her that Nurse #1 had administered Resident #2's Hydralazine to Resident #1 in error. The DON said she notified the physician of the medication error, and obtained physician's orders for Resident #1 to receive Normal Saline, 1 Liter via IV at 100 mL/hour, and increased monitoring of his/her blood pressure. Review of Resident #1's MAR indicated nursing monitored his/her blood pressure as ordered, and by 04:00 P.M., his/her blood pressure measured 130/68 mm Hg and had stabilized. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Progress Note, dated 02/25/25, timed 11:55 P.M., indicated he/she had self-removed his/her IV line after infusion of 600 mL of Normal Saline, his/her physician was notified, and no further orders were obtained. The Progress Note indicated Resident #1's Blood Pressure was stable at that time and measured 102/59 mm Hg. The DON said Nurse #1 should have compared the medications he prepared against the MAR and correctly identified the resident that the medications were prescribed for before he administered the medication, but had not. On 05/05/25, the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and provided the Surveyor with a plan of correction which addressed the area of concern as evidenced by: A) 02/25/25, Resident #1's physician was notified of the medication error, new orders were obtained, and he/she recovered from the hypotension caused by the accidental overdose of Hydralazine B) 02/25/25, The Ad-Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Action Plan indicated the Facility Leadership developed a plan to correct the deficient practice and ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors. C) 02/26/25, The DON/designee conducted an initial audit to determine if residents were being properly identified by nursing prior to medication administration. Audits will continue weekly until 04/04/25, then bi-weekly. D) 02/26/25, The DON/designee conducted an audit of resident photos and updated them as needed to most accurately reflect the residents' appearances. E) 02/27/25, The DON, ADON, and SDC educated all Facility staff that nurses should not be disturbed during medication preparation and administration, unless the interruption is critical. F) 02/27/25, The DON/designee provided signs to be posted on each medication cart that indicate not to disturb nurses during medication administration. G) 03/03/25, The DON, ADON, and SDC educated all Licensed staff on medication administration best practices, with focus on identification of residents prior to medication administration and avoiding common medication errors. H) The Facility will monitor compliance at monthly and quarterly Quality Assurance Meetings. I) The Director of Nurses and/or designee are responsible for ongoing compliance.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
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** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was coded accurat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was coded accurately for one Resident (#12) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to code all of the Resident's psychiatric and mood disorder diagnoses on four separate MDS Assessments. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 (RAI) User's Manual (https://www.cms.gov/files/document/finalmds-30-rai-manual-v11811october2023.pdf) indicated the following: -document all active diagnoses on the MDS -psychiatric/mood disorder >anxiety disorder >schizophrenia (e.g., schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders) -active diagnoses in the last 7 days >A medication indicates active disease if that medication is prescribed to manage an ongoing condition that requires monitoring or is prescribed to decrease active symptoms of a condition Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in April 2022, with diagnoses including Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type (a serious mental illness that combines both schizophrenia [affects how the person thinks and behaves with symptoms including hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking and speech, etc.] and mood disorder [causes manic and depressive episodes]). Review of Resident #12's Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner Visit Note dated 4/1/24, indicated the following: -a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder. -the recommendation to restart the Resident on Ativan (an antianxiety medication) due to increased symptoms of anxiety after discontinuation. Review of Resident #12's Physician Orders indicated: -an active order for Aripiprazole (an antipsychotic medication) 20 milligrams (mg) every evening, initiated on 2/29/24. -an inactive order for Ativan 0.5 mg daily, initiated on 4/2/24 and updated on 6/8/24. -an active order for Ativan 0.5 mg daily, initiated on 6/8/24. Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Records indicated the following: -in March 2024 the Resident received Aripiprazole as ordered. -in June 2024 the Resident received Aripiprazole and Ativan as ordered. -in August 2024 the Resident received Ativan as ordered. -in November 2024 the Resident received Ativan as ordered. Review of Resident #12's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -Schizophrenia was not coded as an active diagnosis. -Antipsychotics were received on a routine basis. Review of Resident #12's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -Schizophrenia and Anxiety were not coded as active diagnoses. -Antipsychotics were received on a routine basis. -Antianxiety medication was in use. Review of Resident #12's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -Anxiety disorder was not coded as an active diagnosis. -Antianxiety medication was in use. Review of Resident #12's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -Anxiety disorder was not coded as an active diagnosis. -Antianxiety medication was in use. During an interview on 12/26/24 at 11:20 A.M., the MDS Nurse said the facility followed the RAI manual and did not have a formal policy for MDS completion. The MDS Nurse further said the following: -the 3/9/24 MDS Assessment should have been coded with Schizophrenia as an active diagnosis, but it was not. -the 6/6/24 MDS Assessment should have been coded with Schizophrenia and Anxiety Disorder as active diagnoses, but it was not. -the 8/29/24 and 11/27/24 MDS Assessments should have been coded with Anxiety Disorder as an active diagnosis, but they were not.
May 2022 1 deficiency
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, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to implement the plan of care for one Resident (#46) related to the use of a Prevalon boot (a boot worn to relieve pressure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to implement the plan of care for one Resident (#46) related to the use of a Prevalon boot (a boot worn to relieve pressure to the heel), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in December 2021 with the following diagnoses: pressure induced deep tissue injury of the right heel, pressure ulcer of the right ankle, and Diabetes Mellitus. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 4/13/22, indicated that Resident #46 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a total score of 15. Review of the current physician orders, initiated on 4/27/22, indicated an order for Prevalon/similar boots to offload (minimize/ remove weight placed on the foot) heels every shift. Review of the Physician progress notes dated 4/27/22, indicated Resident #46 was seen by vascular surgery and the following reccomendation was noted : Prevalon boots to offload heels. On 5/24/22 at 9:15 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 seated in his/her wheelchair with a dressing to the right foot and a non skid sock in place over the dressing. The Resident did not have a Prevalon boot applied to his/her foot. On 5/25/22 at 11:04 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 seated in his/her wheelchair with a non-skid sock over a dressing to the right foot. During an interview, the Resident said that he/she doesn't wear any shoes or special boots but usually wears a slipper on his left foot and a sock on his right foot. Resident #46 said that he/she tried a shoe on the right foot a few weeks ago but it was too heavy for him/her to wear. During an interview on 5/26/22 at 10:49 A.M., unit manager #1 said that Resident #46 had refused the Prevalon boot. Upon review of the Treatment Administration Record with the surveyor, unit manager #1 said that there was no documentation that the Resident had refused the Prevalon boot, and that if the Prevalon boot was ordered it should be on the Resident.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Massachusetts.
  • • 38% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 3 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr Staffed?

CMS rates RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 1 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr?

RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR 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 MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 82 certified beds and approximately 74 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LANCASTER, Massachusetts.

How Does River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in 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 River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr Stick Around?

RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr Ever Fined?

RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR has been fined $8,788 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,167. 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 River Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ctr on Any Federal Watch List?

RIVER TERRACE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CTR 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.