BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK

3 VISION DRIVE, NATICK, MA 01760 (508) 651-9200
For profit - Corporation 53 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
63/100
#70 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Center in Natick has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #70 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #17 out of 72 in Middlesex County, indicating that only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from three in 2024 to two in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 32%, which is better than the state average, although RN coverage is concerning, as it is lower than 96% of facilities in Massachusetts. The facility faced a fine of $20,267, which is average, but there have been serious incidents, including a resident who suffered a fracture due to not receiving the required assistance during care, highlighting important concerns about adherence to care plans.

Trust Score
C+
63/100
In Massachusetts
#70/338
Top 20%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$20,267 in fines. Higher than 90% of Massachusetts facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 32%

13pts below Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $20,267

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete two Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for one Resident (#39) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete two Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for one Resident (#39) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that two consecutive MDS Assessments for Resident #39 were accurately coded relative to a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder (other than Schizophrenia). Findings include: Review of The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) MDS 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual dated October 2024 indicated: -Section I: Active diagnoses intent: The items in this section are intended to code diseases that have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death. One of the important functions of the MDS assessment is to generate an updated, accurate picture of the resident's current health status. -Code diseases that have a documented diagnosis in the last 60 days and have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death during the 7-day look-back period. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in January 2024 with diagnoses including Lewy Body Dementia (a progressive brain disorder that effects thinking, movement, mood, and behavior), Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA), and Parkinson's Disease. Review of Resident #39's MDS Assessments indicated: -MDS Assessment completed 8/30/24, Resident #39 had a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder (other than Schizophrenia). -MDS Assessment completed 11/26/24, Resident #39 had a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder (other than Schizophrenia). Review of the Resident's clinical record showed no evidence the Resident had been diagnosed with a Psychotic Disorder. During an interview on 1/7/25 at 8:48 A.M., the MDS Nurse said the Psychotic Disorder diagnosis on Resident #39's MDS Assessments completed on 8/30/24 and 11/26/24, were coding errors and the Resident did not have a Psychotic Disorder. The MDS Nurse said the MDS Assessments should not have been coded with a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder and should be modified.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

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 post the required nurse staffing information daily as required. Sp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to post the required nurse staffing information daily as required. Specifically, the facility failed to: -post the total number and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN), and Certified Nurses Aides (CNA). Findings include: During the facility survey, the surveyor observed the nurse staffing information was posted on both the [NAME] and [NAME] Units on 1/2/25. The surveyor observed that the nurse staffing postings on 1/2/25, did not include the total number of hours and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: RNs, LPNs, LVNs, and CNAs. On 1/2/25 at 9:28 A.M., the surveyor requested all facility maintained copies of the nurse staffing information for 2023 and 2024, which was provided by the facility Scheduler. Review of all the nurse staff postings provided by the facility from November 2023 to January 2025 did not include the total number of hours and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: RNs, LPNs, LVNs, and CNAs. During an interview on 1/2/25 at 9:45A.M., the facility Scheduler said that she was unaware that the total number of hours and actual hours worked had to be included in the daily posted nurse staffing information. During an interview on 1/2/25 at 10:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she had been unaware that the posted nursing staffing forms needed to have the total number of hours and actual hours worked.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record includin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record including but not limited to hospice services documentation and an integrated plan of care. Findings include: Review of the Facility Services Agreement for Hospice Care, signed however, undated, indicated that Hospice Services means those services provided to a Hospice Patient that are reasonable and necessary for palliation and management of such Hospice Patient's terminal illness and are specialized in a Hospice Patient's Plan of Care. The Agreement also indicated that the Plan of Care means a written care plan established, maintained, reviewed, and modified, if necessary, at intervals identified by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Hospice and Facility will jointly develop and agree upon a coordinated Plan of Care. 1). Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in December 2023, diagnoses included myelodysplastic syndrome (conditions that occur when the blood-forming cells in the bone marrow become abnormal), hyponatremia (low sodium), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and toxic metabolic encephalopathy (acute cerebral dysfunction due to metabolic disturbances). Review of Resident #1's Physician Order, dated 01/24/24, indicated he/she had been admitted to Hospice services. Review of Resident #1's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 02/02/24, indicated he/she had been on Hospice Services. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated that there was no documentation to support a Hospice Care Plan had been integrated or made accessible to Facility Staff to follow so they could effectively collaborate with Hospice to meet his/her care needs. 2). Resident #3 was admitted to the Facility in March 2024, diagnoses include breast cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pulmonary fibrosis. Review of Resident #3's Physician Order, dated 03/12/24, indicated he/she had been admitted to Hospice services. Review of Resident #3's Significant Change MDS Assessment, dated 03/19/24, indicated he/she had been on Hospice Services. Review of Resident #3's medical record indicated that there was no documentation to support a Hospice Care Plan had been integrated or made accessible to Facility Staff to follow so they could effectively collaborate with Hospice to meet his/her care needs. During a telephone interview on 06/06/24 at 10:28 A.M., the Assistant Director of Hospice Services said that all Hospice patient information is uploaded and stored within Home Care Home Base (their electronic medical record)and the Facility is unable access that information. The Director said that the Facility's Social Worker (SW) is their primary contact, that Hospice had been instructed to e-mail Hospice documents to the SW and that the facility SW would then be responsible for printing and scanning that information into the medical record for each Hospice Resident making the Hospice information accessible for nursing. During an interview on 06/04/24 at 1:26 P.M., the Unit Manager said that she was not certain where Resident #1's and/or Resident #3's integrated Hospice Care Plans were and could not locate them in their medical record. The Unit Manager said the documentation should had been scanned into their medical records under the Hospice tab in Matrix (Facility's electronic medical record) so all of the staff could view and follow the care plans. During a telephone interview on 06/10/24, the Former Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), said that she had not been aware of the Facility's protocol for Hospice residents related to receipt and integration of their Hospice documentation. The ADON said that the Facility care plan is different from an integrated Hospice care plan and that nurses need to be aware and have access to the information on the Hospice care plan. During a interview on 06/04/24 at 2:27 P.M., the Social Worker (SW) said that she thought the required Hospice documentation automatically got uploaded to each resident's medical record. The SW said she had not known that it was her responsibility to print the documents received by Hospice and upload the information into each of the Hospice resident's facility medical records. During an interview on 06/10/24 at 1:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses said that she had been under the impression that all Hospice documents were being scanned into each of the resident's medical record. The DON said it is the expectation of the Facility to ensure all required Hospice documentation, including but not limited to the integrated plan of care be accessible to Nursing staff caring for any Resident on Hospice.
Jan 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), who was assessed and care planned to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 and care planned to be totally dependent on two staff members for bed mobility, incontinence care and turning and repositioning in bed, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff consistently implemented and followed interventions from his/her Plan of Care while meeting his/her care needs, when on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift on 11/24/23 into 11/25/23, Nurse Aide #1 provided Resident #1 with incontinence care and repositioning in bed, without the assistance of another staff member. On 11/25/23 on the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift, Resident #1 was found with a new area of bruising of unknown origin to his/her left upper arm. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department, where he/she was diagnosed with an acute left humeral (upper arm bone) fracture. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy, titled Care Planning, dated as last revised 11/28/18, indicated that the Interdisciplinary Team is responsible for the development of an individualized comprehensive care plan for each resident. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, dated as last revised 2019, indicated that the comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool and must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services that are to be provided by staff to attain or maintain the resident ' s highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in April 2023, diagnoses included advanced dementia, malnutrition, anxiety, depression, and multiple contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissues, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints). Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/03/23, indicated he/she had both long-and short-term memory loss, severely impaired decision-making abilities, rarely/never unable to make his/her needs known, or rarely/never able to understand others. The MDS further indicated he/she was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, turning and repositioning, transfers, and incontinence care. The MDS indicated he/she had bilateral contractures to his/her lower extremities and contractures to his/her upper extremity. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled Activities of Daily Living, dated as last revised 10/18/23, indicated he/she required total assistance of two staff members to turn and reposition every two hours and as needed (PRN), incontinence care and weight shift in bed or chair every two hours, and totally dependent of two staff members with transfers while utilizing a mechanical lift. Review of Resident #1's Resident Profile, dated as last revised 10/18/23, indicated he/she required total assistance of two staff members to turn and reposition every two hours and PRN, incontinence care or weight shift in bed or wheelchair every two hours, and totally dependent of two staff members with transfers while utilizing a mechanical lift. Review of the report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 12/06/23, indicated that staff discovered a large bruise on Resident #1 left upper arm of unknown origin, however, after the Facility investigation, the nurse aide (later identified as Nurse Aide #1) on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. (night shift) informed the Director of Nurses (DON) that she had provided incontinence care twice during the shift to Resident #1 and had not asked another staff member for any assistance. Review of the Facility Incident Report, dated 11/25/23, indicated Resident #1 was found with a large irregularly formed ecchymotic area, measuring 14 centimeters (cm) by 8 cm to his/her left upper arm and required transfer to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated he/she was diagnosed with an acute comminuted displaced fracture through the left humeral surgical neck with the involvement of the greater tuberosity, non-displaced fracture of the proximal end of the left humerus. Review of Nurse Aide (NA) #1's, Written Witness Statement, dated 11/25/23, and review of NA #1's telephone interview with the DON, dated 11/28/23 at 4:00 P.M., indicated that Resident #1 was on her assignment from 11:00 P.M. on 11/24/23 through 7:00 A.M. on 11/25/23. NA #1 said that she checked on him/her when she first arrived and said she provided incontinence care to him/her twice during the night. The DON asked NA #1 if she got help from any other staff and NA #1 said no. The DON explained to NA #1 that Resident #1 should have been a two person assist for care. During a telephone interview on 1/24/24 at 12:00 P.M., Nurse Aide (NA) #1 said she was aware that Resident #1 needed the assistance of two staff to transfer and to change his/her position when he/she was in bed and said she had not asked any other staff member for assistance that night. During a telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 2:01 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that when she specifically asked NA #1 if she knew Resident #1 was a 2 person assist, she said NA #1 was very vague and did not answer her question. During a telephone interview on 01/25/24 at 10:28 A.M., CNA #8 said she had worked on 11/25/23 at 7:00 A.M. and said Resident #1 was on her assignment. CNA #8 said she and CNA #2 were beginning to get Resident #1 ready for the day and said when she removed his/her night gown they noticed a large red area to his/her left arm (between the shoulder and elbow). CNA #8 said she immediately called the nurses (Nurse #1 and Nurse #2) to see the area. During a telephone interview on 01/23/24 at 1:27 P.M., Nurse #1 said she was working from 11:00 P.M. on 11/24/23 through 7:00 A.M. on 11/25/23 and said that she had explained to NA #1 in the past that Resident #1 was very contracted, fragile and required two assists with all care. Nurse #1 said NA #1 had not asked for any assistance during that shift. Review of CNA # 7's Written Witness Statement, dated 11/25/23, indicated he had no interaction with Resident #1 at all during that night shift. During a telephone interview on 01/25/24 at 2:39 P.M., CNA #5 said she had trained NA #1 on the night shift for some of her orientation and said the first thing she always did was go around and ensure that NA #1 was aware of each resident's level of care on their assignment. CNA #5 said Resident #1 had been on their assignment in the past when NA #1 was in training. During an interview on 01/17/24 at 1:54 P.M., the Director of Rehabilitation Services said Resident #1 requires total care of two nursing staff members at all times, except for eating and oral hygiene. During a telephone interview on 1/18/24, the Nurse Manager said that back in October 2023, Resident #1's Family Member had some concerns with his/her care, considering how fragile and contracted Resident #1's was, and said since then, Resident #1 was care planned to have two nursing staff for all care, except for eating and brushing his/her teeth (that only required one nursing staff member). The Nurse Manager said that was when his/her Care Plan and Resident Profile were updated. The Nurse Manager said it is the Facility's expectation that all CNA's are aware of each resident's functional level prior to actually providing physical care and should be utilizing the Resident Profile for guidance. During a telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 2:01 P.M., the Director of Nurses said it is the expectation of the Facility that all nursing staff are familiar with each resident's care needs prior to providing them with physical assistance. The DON said all nursing staff are expected to follow each resident care plan and care areas are located on each Resident profile for CNA's to access and are expected to ask questions if they are uncertain of how to care for a resident.
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 to be totally depend...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 to be totally dependent on two staff members with bed mobility, turning and repositioning, and incontinence care, the Facility failed to ensure his/her plan of care was followed to maintain his/her safety and prevent an incident or accident resulting in a major injury, when on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift on 11/24/23 into 11/25/23, Nurse Aide #1 provided Resident #1 with incontinence care and repositioning in bed, without the assistance of another staff member. On 11/25/23, on the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift, Resident #1 was found with a new area of bruising of unknown origin to his/her left upper arm. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department, where he/she was diagnosed with an acute left humeral (upper arm bone) fracture. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Safe Lifting and Movement Policy, dated as last revised 08/01/18, indicated that employees use safe methods for lifting and moving elders in the nursing facility in order to prevent injury to both the employees and elders. The Policy further indicated that all elders/residents who have any degree of dependency for transfer or movement will be assessed to determine the extent of assistance required and the safest method of assistance. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in April 2023, diagnoses included advanced dementia, malnutrition, anxiety, depression, and multiple contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissues, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints). Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/03/23, indicated he/she had both long and short-term memory loss, severely impaired decision-making abilities, rarely/never unable to make his/her needs known, or rarely/never able to understand others. The MDS further indicated he/she was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, turning and repositioning, incontinence care, and transfers. The MDS indicated he/she had bilateral contractures to his/her lower extremities and contractures to his/her upper extremity. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled Activities of Daily Living, dated as last revised 10/18/23, indicated he/she required total assistance of two staff members to turn and reposition every two hours and as needed (PRN), incontinence care and weight shift in bed or chair every two hours, and totally dependent of two staff members with transfers while utilizing a mechanical lift. Review of Resident #1's Resident Profile, dated as last revised 10/18/23, indicated he/she required total assistance of two staff members to turn and reposition every two hours and PRN, incontinence care or weight shift in bed or wheelchair every two hours, and totally dependent of two staff members with transfers while utilizing a mechanical lift. Review of Occupational Therapy Progress Note, dated 10/31/23, indicated Resident #1 had bilateral (both left and right side) contractures to his/her shoulders, elbows, hips, and knees. Review of the report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 12/06/23, indicated that staff discovered a large bruise on Resident #1 left upper arm of unknown origin, however, after the Facility investigation, the nurse aide (later identified as Nurse Aide #1) on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. (night shift) informed the Director of Nurses (DON) that she had provided incontinence care twice during the shift to Resident #1 and had not asked another staff member for any assistance. Review of the Facility Incident Report, dated 11/25/23, indicated Resident #1 was found with a large irregularly formed ecchymotic area, measuring 14 centimeters (cm) by 8 cm to his/her left upper arm and required transfer to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated he/she was diagnosed with an acute comminuted displaced fracture through the left humeral surgical neck with the involvement of the greater tuberosity, non-displaced fracture of the proximal end of the left humerus. Review of Nurse Aide (NA) #1's, Written Witness Statement, dated 11/25/23, and review of NA #1's telephone interview with the DON, dated 11/28/23 at 4:00 P.M., indicated that Resident #1 was on her assignment from 11:00 P.M. on 11/24/23 through 7:00 A.M. on 11/25/23. NA #1 said that she checked on him/her when she first arrived and said she provided incontinence care to him/her twice during the night. The DON asked NA #1 if she got help from any other staff and NA #1 said no. The DON explained to NA #1 that Resident #1 should have been a two person assist for care. During a telephone interview on 1/24/24 at 12:00 P.M., Nurse Aide (NA) #1 said she was aware that Resident #1 needed the assistance of two staff to transfer and to change his/her position when he/she was in bed and said she had not asked any other staff member for assistance that night. During a telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 2:01 P.M., The Director of Nurses (DON) said that when she specifically asked NA #1 if she knew Resident #1 was a 2 person assist, she said NA #1 was very vague and did not answer her question. During a telephone interview on 01/25/24 at 10:28 A.M., CNA #8 said she worked on 11/25/23 at 7:00 A.M. and said Resident #1 was on her assignment. CNA #8 said she and CNA #2 were beginning to get Resident #1 ready for the day and when she removed his/her night gown, they noticed a large red area to his/her left arm (between the shoulder and elbow). CNA #8 said she immediately called the nurses (Nurse #1 and Nurse #2) to see the area. During a telephone interview on 01/23/24 at 1:27 P.M., Nurse #1 said she was working from 11:00 P.M. on 11/24/23 through 7:00 A.M. on 11/25/23 and said that she had explained to NA #1 in the past that Resident #1 was very contracted, fragile and required two assists with all care. Nurse #1 said NA #1 had not asked for any assistance during that shift. Review of CNA # 7's Written Witness Statement, dated 11/25/23, indicated he had no interaction with Resident #1 at all during that night shift. During a telephone interview on 01/25/24 at 2:39 P.M., CNA #5 said she had trained NA #1 on the night shift for some of her orientation and said the first thing she always did was go around and ensure that NA #1 was aware of each resident's level of care on their assignment. CNA #5 said Resident #1 had been on their assignment in the past when NA #1 was in training. During a telephone interview on 01/18/24, the Nurse Manager said that back in October 2023, Resident #1's Family Member had some concerns with his/her care, considering how fragile and contracted Resident #1's was. The Nurse Manager said since then, Resident #1 was care planned for two nursing staff for all care, except for eating and brushing his/her teeth (that only requires one nursing staff member). The Nurse Manager said that was when his/her Care Plan and Resident Profile were updated. The Nurse Manager said it is the Facility's expectation that all CNA's are aware of each resident's functional level prior to actually providing physical care and should be utilizing the Resident Profile for guidance. During a telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 2:01 P.M., the Director of Nurses said it is the expectation of the Facility that all nursing staff are familiar with each resident's care needs prior to providing them with physical assistance. The DON said all nursing staff are expected to follow each resident care plan and care areas are located on each Resident profile for CNA's to access and are expected to ask questions if they are uncertain of how to care for a resident.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of the facility's Nurse Staff Schedule and interviews, the facility failed to provide evidence that the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) were used for at least eight consecutive hou...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility's Nurse Staff Schedule and interviews, the facility failed to provide evidence that the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) were used for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. Specifically, the facility failed to provide evidence that at least eight consecutive hours of RN coverage was provided over three 24-hour periods when no Nurse staff waivers were in place. Findings include: Review of the Weekly Nurse Staff Schedule provided by the facility for 10/15/23 through 10/21/23 indicated no evidence that the required eight consecutive hours of RN coverage was provided on either 10/15/23 or 10/21/23. Review of the Weekly Nurse Staff Schedule provided by the facility for 10/22/23 through 10/28/23 indicated no evidence that the required eight consecutive hours of RN coverage was provided on 10/22/23. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 10:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility had difficulty with staffing RNs, no nurse staff waivers were in place, and that she and the Infection Preventioninst (IP), who was also a RN, rotated being on-call for weekend coverage. The DON said if there was no RN scheduled, either she or the IP were always available to facility staff if they called. The surveyor reviewed the dates in question relative to RN coverage (10/15/23, 10/21/23 and 10/22/23) and when asked for evidence that the required RN coverage hours for 10/15/23, 10/21/23, and 10/22/23 were fulfilled, the DON said that either she or the IP were always there. The DON said she would attempt to locate evidence of this for the dates requested. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 1:25 P.M., with Nurse #1, Nurse #2, and Nurse #3, Nurse #1 said she was a RN and worked most weekends, but if there was no RN in the building and services of an RN were needed, staff would call the DON or IP. Nurse #2, who was a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), said there may not be a RN in the building on the weekends, but the DON and IP were always available to be called. Nurse #3, who was also a LPN, said the DON and IP took turns being on-call, so they may not be in the building, but they were always available to be called. No evidence was provided to the survey team prior to the end of the survey period that the required eight consecutive hours of RN services were fulfilled for 10/15/23, 10/21/23, and 10/22/23.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nursing staff data daily, at the start of each shift, relative to licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nursing staff data daily, at the start of each shift, relative to licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. Specifically, the facility failed to post this data, in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors, to include: a) facility name, b) current date, c) total number and hours for Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs), and d) resident census. Findings include: On 11/14/23 at 7:00 A.M., the surveyor observed the facility's main entrance and lobby area and did not find nursing staff data posted in the area. On 11/14/23 at 7:50 A.M., the surveyor observed the inside area of the elevator and the area outside of the elevator on the second floor where both resident units were located in the facility. No posting of nurse staffing data was observed. On 11/15/23, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., the surveyor observed no posted nursing staff data in the facility's main entrance and lobby area, the inside and outside area of the elevator, on the second floor elevator area or resident units. On 11/16/23, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:10 A.M., the surveyor observed no posted nursing staff data in the facility's main entrance and lobby area, the inside and outside area of the elevator, on the second floor elevator area or resident units. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 10:15 A.M., the Administrator said the facility did not have nursing staff data posted and accessible to residents and visitors. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 10:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility had not consistently posted nursing staff data because this task had not been assigned to a specific staff member to be completed. The DON said that the facility's nursing staff data had not been posted as required, on any day during the survey period.
Feb 2023 3 deficiencies
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, regarding immunizations, for two Residents (#8 and #5) out of eight s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, regarding immunizations, for two Residents (#8 and #5) out of eight sampled residents. Findings include: 1.Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in May 2015. Review of the MDS assessment, with Assesment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/17/23, indicated under Section O, that the Resident received the influenza vaccination in the facility for this year's influenza season (beginning October 2022) and it was last administered on 10/19/21. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 2:50 P.M., the MDS Coordinator said the MDS was coded incorrectly. 2. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility in May 2015. Review of the clinical record indicated the Resident was administered Influenza Vaccinations on 9/16/21 and 10/7/22. Review of a MDS assessment, dated 1/3/22, indicated the Influenza Vaccine was administered in the facility during the current Influenza season (October 2022 through March 2023) on 9/16/21. During an interview on 2/16/23, the MDS Coordinator said the dated of the Influenza Vaccination was coded incorrectly and it should have been recorded as 10/7/22.
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, policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff implemented appropriate infection control measures to help prevent transmission of communicab...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff implemented appropriate infection control measures to help prevent transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two Residents (#1 and #3), out of eight sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure its staff 1) implemented the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as indicated for Resident #1, and 2) monitored Resident #1 and #3 for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 every shift during an active COVID-19 outbreak. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Contact Precautions, dated 2/1/20, indicated the following: -Use Contact Precautions to prevent the spread of germs by direct or indirect contact with residents or their environments. -Contact Precautions are special safeguards that must be put in place when dealing with residents who are infected with certain germs. -Ensure Precaution sign and equipment are near entrance to the resident's room. -Wear gloves and gown when entering residents' room and remove them when leaving the rooms. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) management in Healthcare Settings, indicated that in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF): -Consider the individual patient's clinical situation when deciding whether to implement or modify Contact Precautions in addition to Standard Precautions for a patient infected or colonized with a target MDRO. -For ill residents (e.g., those totally dependent upon healthcare personnel for healthcare and activities of daily living), use Contact Precautions in addition to Standard Precautions. 1. For Resident #1 the facility failed to ensure its staff wore PPE during care when the Resident was on Contact Precautions for an MDRO. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in September 2022. Review of the clinical record indicated the Resident was receiving Hospice care and had an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted through the urethra to the bladder for urine drainage). Review of a laboratory result, dated 12/11/22, indicated Klebsiella Pneumoniae MDRO was present in the urine sample and contact isolation was indicated to prevent the spread. During an observation on 2/16/23 at 8:34 A.M., the surveyor observed two signs on Resident #1's door. One indicated Isolation Precautions (keep door closed, wear gown, gloves and N95 mask to enter) and the other one indicated Contact Precautions (providers and staff must put on a mask, gloves and a gown prior to room entry). During an interview on 2/16/23 at 8:36 A.M., Nurse #1 said the Resident was on Contact Precautions due to having a MDRO in the urine. Nurse #1 said the staff were to wear a gown and gloves when providing care and when they emptied his/her urinary drainage bag as the urine could splash when it was emptied from the bag. Nurse #1 said she did not think the Resident still required Isolation Precautions. During an observation on 2/16/23 at 10:18 A.M., the surveyor observed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 in Resident #1's room, emptying the Resident's urinary drainage bag, wearing only a surgical mask and gloves. Unit Manager #1 walked by the Resident's room and told CNA #1 that the Resident's door should be shut when she was providing care. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 10:25 A.M., the surveyor observed CNA #1 exit Resident #1's room. The surveyor asked CNA #1 what type of PPE was required when providing care to Resident #1. CNA #1 said she realized she should have worn a gown, but she had not. CNA #1 said she had emptied the catheter bag and provided all morning care to Resident #1 without a gown on. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 2:53 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said Resident #1 should have been on Contact Precautions only, due to the MDRO in the urine. She further said the CNA should have worn a gown when in the Resident's room and providing care. 2. Review of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Memorandum, Update to Caring for Long Term Care Residents during the COVID-19 Response, including Visitation Conditions, Communal Dining, and Congregate Activities, dated October 13, 2022, indicated the following: -On unit (s) conducting outbreak testing, a long term care facility should assess residents for symptoms of COVID-19 during each shift. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in September 2022. Review of a Physician's order, dated 9/12/22, indicated: COVID Surveillance: Perform respiratory/COVID assessment daily to monitor for signs and symptoms of viral infection, once a day 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. Review of the January 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated COVID Surveillance was documented as completed on the 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. shift, for all days of the month. Review of a Social Worker's note, dated 2/8/23, indicated the Resident tested positive for COVID-19 and the family/representative was notified on that day. Review of a Physician's order, dated 2/15/23, indicated: COVID Surveillance: Perform respiratory/COVID assessment daily to monitor for signs and symptoms of viral infection every shift; nights, days and evenings. Review of the February 2023 TAR indicated COVID Surveillance was documented as completed on the 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. shift from 2/1/23 through 2/14/23. The TAR indicated documented COVID Surveillance was completed for each shift beginning 2/15/23. 3. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of facility documentation indicated that Resident #3 had been COVID-19 tested every other day beginning 1/31/23 through 2/14/23, and had not tested positive. Review of a Physician's order, dated 2/15/23, indicated; COVID Surveillance: Perform respiratory/COVID assessment daily to monitor for signs and symptoms of viral infection every shift; nights, days and evenings. Review of the February 2023 TAR indicated COVID Surveillance was documented as completed for each shift starting 2/15/23. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 8:50 A.M. , both the Unit Manager and the MDS Coordinator said that nurses are monitoring for COVID-19 signs and symptoms on each shift, for all residents. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 8:55 A.M., the Director of Nurse (DON) said that the facility had a COVID-19 outbreak that began 1/31/23. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 2:15 P.M., the DON said that all residents should have been monitored for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 on every shift, since start of the outbreak that began on 1/31/23. The DON and the surveyor reviewed the Physician's orders and the January/February 2023 TARs for Resident #1 and Resident #3. She said neither Resident #1, nor Resident #3 had monitoring done each shift until 2/15/23 when ordered (by the Physician), and that Resident #3 had no documented COVID-19 monitoring on any shift until 2/15/23. She said COVID-19 surveillance had not been done in accordance with the State and Federal guidance and recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff administered the influenza vaccine after obtaining consent for one Resident (#7) and failed to offer the influenza vaccine...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff administered the influenza vaccine after obtaining consent for one Resident (#7) and failed to offer the influenza vaccine to one Resident (#4) out of five applicable sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the Consent for Immunizations, signed and dated 10/12/22, indicated the Resident/Resident Representative signed consent to receive the annual influenza vaccination. Review of the clinical record did not indicate the influenza vaccination was offered to the Resident after the consent for administration was obtained. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 2:52 P.M., with the Director of Nurses (DON) and Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, (who were both sharing the role of the Infection Preventionist (IP)), the MDS Coordinator said the process was for the facility staff to get consent in October from either the Resident or the Health Care Proxy (HCP) to consent or decline the annual influenza vaccine. The MDS Coordinator said once the consent was obtained they administered the vaccination. The MDS Coordinator said there should have been evidence in the record that the Resident was offered the influenza vaccine after the consent was obtained. 2. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in September 2022. Review of Resident #4's medical record indicated no documented evidence that the Resident and/or his/her Representative had received education regarding the risks and benefits of the Influenza Vaccine, nor was there evidence the vaccine was offered, received or declined. Review of Resident #4's Preventive Health Care report in the medical record did not include any documentation relative to the Influenza Vaccine history. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 3:10 P.M., the DON said there was no evidence that Resident #4 had been educated, offered, and received/declined the Influenza Vaccine, but there should have been.
May 2022 4 deficiencies
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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staff provided wound care as ordered for one Resident (#35) out of three closed record sampled residents. Findings include: Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staff provided wound care as ordered for one Resident (#35) out of three closed record sampled residents. Findings include: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with diagnoses including unstageable wounds to bilateral heels and left side of foot, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of a progress note, dated 4/14/22, indicated the Resident had a left foot lateral aspect of fifth toe ulcer that measured 2 centimeters (cm) x 2.5 cm with 100 % eschar (dead, necrotic) tissue in the wound bed. Left lateral heel ulcer 2 cm x 2 cm with 100% eschar in the wound bed. Right heel ulcer 2.5 cm x 2 cm with 100% eschar in the wound bed. Review of the April 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated the following: -Left base of fifth toe wound, cleanse with normal saline, pat dry and wrap in kerlix daily. -Left lateral heel wound, cleanse with normal saline, pat dry and apply silvasorb (antimicrobial) gel, cover with adaptic (protects the wound from trauma) non-adhering dressing, dry dressing and wrap with kerlix daily. -Right heel wound, cleanse with normal saline, pat dry and apply silvasorb gel, cover with adaptic non-adhering dressing, dry dressing and wrap with kerlix daily. Further review of the TAR indicated the treatments listed above were administered on 4/14/22 and discontinued on 4/15/22. Review of the physician's orders did not indicate an order to discontinue the treatments. Review of a physician's order, dated 4/15/22, indicated to apply skin prep (a liquid-forming dressing, that upon application to skin, forms a protective film to help reduce friction) to bilateral heel ulcers twice a day, off load with pillows. Review of a progress note, dated 4/15/22, indicated the Resident was seen by the physician who ordered to apply skin prep to bilateral heel ulcers twice daily, off load heels with pillows. Review of the April 2022 TAR indicated the order for skin prep to bilateral heels was not implemented. During an interview on 5/6/22 at 12:26 P.M., the Unit Manager (UM) said that the Resident came in with vascular ulcers to bilateral heels and outer left foot, and the physician said to start skin prep. She said the Resident was seen by the wound specialist (on 4/26/22) who advised to change the treatment to betadine (topical antiseptic that provides infection protection). The UM said the wound specialist saw the Resident and said to use betadine but she never wrote a report that the facility could provide the surveyor because the wound doctor was unable to bill, due to insurance. The UM reviewed the April 2022 TAR and said she didn't see that the skin prep order was ever implemented and should have been. During an interview on 5/6/22 at 12:48 P.M., Nurse #2 said that she was the nurse who wrote the order for skin prep and the progress note on 4/15/22. She said that she should have written orders to discontinue the treatments to the heels and toe but never did. She said that she thought the doctor meant to just leave the areas open to air and not to use the skin prep, but she could see how there was confusion since her note and the order written on 4/15/22 indicated otherwise. She said she understood that ultimately there were a total of four orders for treatments to ulcers that were all discontinued or not put on the TAR and there was no evidence that any of them had orders to be discontinued. She said she didn't know what happened.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff maintained proper infection control ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff maintained proper infection control practices relative to the removal of items from a room where contact precautions had been implemented. Findings include: Review of the facility's Contact Precautions policy, dated 7/19/21, indicated the following: -Use contact precautions to prevent the spread of germs by direct or indirect contact with residents or their environments. During a tour of the [NAME] Unit on 5/4/22 at 8:30 A.M., the surveyor observed a contact precaution sign posted directly outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. During this same time, the Unit Manager (UM) said the Resident residing in the room was on contact precautions due a Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacterial (bacteria that is resistant to the antibiotic,Vancomycin) infection. On 5/5/22 at 9:00 A.M., the surveyor observed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] on the [NAME] Unit. The surveyor observed CNA #2 carrying three ready to eat bowls of Cheerios and a bowl of jelly packets. The surveyor observed her carry them down the hall to the unit kitchen area and place the three bowl of cheerios in a cabinet, and place the bowl of jelly packets on the counter near the meal service area. The breakfast meals were being served at this time. The UM, several CNAs and a Dietary Staff member, were all present when CNA #2 put away the cereal bowls in the cabinet and left the bowl of jelly packets in the meal service area. During an interview on 5/5/22 at 10:46 A.M., the UM said the aide should have thrown away all the food items in the Resident's room and not brought them out of the room. During an interview on 5/5/22 at 11:06 A.M., the Director of Nurses said that none of the food items should have been brought out of the contact precaution room and this was an infection control problem. She said the nursing staff should have stopped CNA #1 from bringing the food items out of the room and placing them in the cabinet. She said proper infection control practices relative to contact precautions were not appropriately maintained by staff.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #6 the facility failed to ensure staff obtained consent or provided education regarding the benefits or side eff...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #6 the facility failed to ensure staff obtained consent or provided education regarding the benefits or side effects of the influenza vaccine to the Resident's representative prior to administration. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in December 2020. Review of the Health Care Proxy (HCP) Invocation Form, indicated the HCP was activated as of 12/7/20. Review of the Preventative Health Care Report, indicated the Resident was administered the influenza vaccine on 9/21/21. Review of the Consent for Immunizations, indicated the Resident's representative signed the consent to administer the influenza vaccine on 10/9/21 (after the vaccine had already been administered). During an interview on 5/05/22 at 8:05 A.M., the UM said that was the only consent for the influenza vaccine she could find for this resident and there was no evidence of education being provided prior to administration. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff provided the resident or the resident's representative, education regarding the benefits and side effects of the influenza and/or pneumococcal immunization and the right to consent to or refuse the influenza and/or pneumococcal immunization, for two Residents (#6 and #37), out of 13 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's Pneumococcal Vaccination of Residents policy, undated, indicated the following: -It is the policy of this facility that each resident or their responsible party will be asked on admission if they have previously had the pneumococcal vaccination and their age at the time. If an immunocompromised resident was [AGE] years of age or less at the time of the initial vaccination and more than five years have elapsed since initial vaccination, one booster dose will be offered. -Pneumococcal candidates for vaccinations include (but not limited to): 65 years or older, serious long-term health problem such as heart disease and lung disease, resistance to infection with long-term steroid use and cancer and/or cancer treatment. -Educate resident or responsible party on benefits and risks of pneumococcal vaccine. Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility in July 2016 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and a history of breast cancer. Review of a Documentation of Resident Incapacity Pursuant to Massachusetts Health Care Proxy (HCP) form, dated 7/21/16, indicated the Resident #37's HCP was invoked due to Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease (affects blood flow and blood vessels of the brain). Review of the resident's Preventative Health Care Record indicated the Resident was administered a pneumococcal vaccine prior to admission [DATE]) and while inpatient at the facility on 5/10/19. Review of the clinical record indicated no evidence that Resident #37's HCP received education regarding the benefits and side effects of the vaccine and/or consented to the administration of the vaccine. During an interview on 5/5/22 at 11:10 A.M., the Unit Manager (UM) said a consent to administer the pneumococcal vaccine to Resident #37 on 5/10/19 was not found and there was no evidence the Resident's HCP had been educated on the benefits of the vaccine. She said both should have been provided/obtained prior to the vaccine being administered on 5/10/19.
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 staff maintained safe food storage and clean equipment, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to help...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff maintained safe food storage and clean equipment, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to help minimize the risk of food-borne illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility's Food Safety and Sanitation policy, dated 2008, indicated the following: -Foods that are refrigerated are stored at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F). -Perishable ingredients are refrigerated when they are not being used. -All leftover are labeled, covered and dated when stored. Review of the facility's General Sanitation of Kitchen policy, dated 2008, indicated the following: -The staff shall maintain the sanitation of the kitchen through compliance with a written, comprehensive cleaning schedules. Tasks will be addressed as to frequency of cleaning. During a tour of the kitchen on 5/4/22 at 7:32 A.M., the following concerns were observed: -The surveyor observed the dry store room and the following items were undated when opened; a five pound (lb) bag of bread crumbs and two 10 lb bags of pasta. The surveyor also observed two large plastic storage bins, one containing bread flour and the other cake flour. Both bins had scoops stored directly in the flour. -In the main kitchen area, the surveyor observed two large plastic storage bins of dried food products that were unlabeled and undated. -On a food preparation table, the surveyor observed the following condiments that were opened and not refrigerated as required; a gallon container of teriyaki sauce (one third full), a five lb container of teriyaki glaze (one fourth full) and a gallon container of soy sauce (one fourth full). -The surveyor observed the fryolator dirty with food crumbs and oil residue along the edges. -The surveyor observed the large mixer dirty with dried food splashes and particles on the inside edge of the splash guard and the underside of the mixer edges. During a tour of the kitchen on 5/5/22 at 2:20 P.M., with the Food Service Director (FSD), the following concerns were observed: -In the dry store room the following items were open and undated; a five lb bag of corn muffin mix and a large bag of pecans (about one fourth full). The two bins of flour still had scoops stored directly in the flour. -In the main kitchen area, the surveyor and the FSD observed the two large storage bins of dry food products, and both remained unlabeled and undated. -On the preparation table, the surveyor and FSD observed the following condiments that remained stored there and not refrigerated as required; the gallon containers of teriyaki sauce and soy sauce. -The surveyor and the FSD observed the fryolator, and it remained dirty with food particles and oil residue around the edges. Also, the fryolator baskets had chunks of fried food particles in them. The FSD said the fryolator had not been in use. -The surveyor and FSD observed the large mixer and it remained dirty with food splashes on the inner edges of the splash guard and on the underside of the mixer edges. During an interview on 5/5/22 at 2:45 P.M., the FSD said that all opened food should be dated when opened, scoops should not be stored directly in food products, the condiments that were opened should have been refrigerated as required, and all equipment should be cleaned after use.
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
  • • 32% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $20,267 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 63/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick Staffed?

CMS rates BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 10 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 Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick?

BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 53 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NATICK, Massachusetts.

How Does Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK 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 4-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 Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick Stick Around?

BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick Ever Fined?

BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK has been fined $20,267 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,282. 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 Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick on Any Federal Watch List?

BEAUMONT REHAB & SKILLED NURSING CTR - NATICK 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.