LASELL HOUSE

120 SEMINARY AVENUE, NEWTON, MA 02466 (617) 663-7000
Non profit - Corporation 44 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
93/100
#28 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Lasell House in Newton, Massachusetts, has received an A Trust Grade, indicating it is excellent and highly recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #28 out of 338 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half of Massachusetts nursing homes, and #11 out of 72 in Middlesex County, signifying that only ten local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 2 in 2023 to none in 2024, and it boasts a strong staffing rating of 5/5 stars, with a low turnover rate of 28%, significantly below the state average. However, there have been some concerns, including failures to properly document medication administration for one resident and incomplete discharge assessments for another, which can impact care quality. On a positive note, there have been no fines, and the facility provides more RN coverage than 98% of state facilities, enhancing the overall care environment.

Trust Score
A
93/100
In Massachusetts
#28/338
Top 8%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 110 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Massachusetts nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2024: 0 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (28%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (28%)

    20 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Massachusetts's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

Sept 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete and submit a Discharge Minimum Data Set assessment for 1 R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete and submit a Discharge Minimum Data Set assessment for 1 Resident (#19) from a total sample of 13 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was discharged from the facility on this date. The Discharge MDS indicated Section GG (functional goals) was not completed. The Discharge MDS also indicated it was not submitted to the Center for Medicare Services (CMS). During an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 9/7/23 at 10:20 A.M., she said Resident #19's Discharge MDS (dated 4/28/23) section GG was not completed. The MDS Coordinator said the Discharge MDS was not submitted to CMS.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document in the medical record regarding the administrat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document in the medical record regarding the administration of medication for 1 Resident (#20) out of a total sample of 13 residents. Findings include: Resident #20 was admitted in June 2023 with diagnoses including femur fracture, osteoarthritis, and depression. Review of Resident #20's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of a possible 15, which indicated the Resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Medication Administration Record for Resident #20 on 9/2/23, indicated the following medications were not documented as given: -Mirtazapine 7.5 milligrams (mg) at bedtime -Simvastatin 20 mg at bedtime -Raloxifene 60 mg at bedtime -Diclofenac 1% topical gel at 9:00 P.M. -Tylenol 500 mg, 2 tablets (1000 mg) at 10:00 P.M. During an interview on 9/7/2023, the Unit Manager said he contacted the nurse who said she administered the medications to Resident #20 on 9/2/23, but forgot to document them as given.
Aug 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement weekly skin checks for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's poli...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement weekly skin checks for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, with a revision date of 6/1/22 indicated the following under Practice Standards: Perform skin inspection on admission/readmission and weekly. Document on Treatment Administration Record (TAR). Resident #23 was admitted in August of 2022 with diagnoses that include chronic kidney disease, repeated falls, muscle weakness and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 8/15/22 indicated Resident #23 scored a 13 out of 15, on the brief interview of mental status indicating he/she is cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #23 required extensive assistance with daily tasks including bed mobility, dressing, hygiene and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and was admitted with skin injuries. On 8/30/22 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #23 was observed sitting up in a chair in his/her room eating his/her breakfast. Resident #23's arm was uncovered, and a dressing was on his/her left forearm, initialed and dated 8/26/22. Resident #23 said he/she had a fall at home and had bruises and injuries. Review of Resident #23's medical record indicated a skin evaluation dated 8/11//22. No further weekly skin evaluations were present in the medical record, indicating two weekly skin checks were not implemented by nursing staff. During an interview on 8/30/22 at 3:33 P.M., Nurse #1 said all residents have orders for weekly skin checks on the electronic treatment record (E-TAR). Nurse #1 and the surveyor observed the E-TAR for Resident #23 which only had one weekly skin check dated 8/11/22. Nurse #1 acknowledged there were no further weekly skin checks completed for Resident #23 and said there was no order in place, (for weekly skin checks.) During an interview on 8/30/22 at 4:05 P.M., the Director of Nursing said skin checks on residents are to be done weekly per facility policy and physician's orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of care for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents, when a daily wound dressing...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of care for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents, when a daily wound dressing was not removed for four days. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, with a revision date of 6/1/22 indicated the following under Practice Standards: The implementation of an individual patient's skin integrity management occurs within the care delivery process. Staff continually observes and monitors patients for changes and implements revisions to the plan of care as needed, 3.4 perform daily monitoring of wounds or dressing for presence of complications or decline and document. Resident #23 was admitted in August of 2022 with diagnoses that include chronic kidney disease, repeated falls, muscle weakness and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 8/15/22 indicated Resident #23 scored a 13 out of 15, on the brief interview of mental status indicating he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #23 required extensive assistance with daily tasks including bed mobility, dressing, and hygiene. On 8/30/22 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #23 was observed sitting up in a chair in his/her room eating his/her breakfast. Resident #23's arm was uncovered, and a dressing was on his/her left forearm, initialed and dated 8/26/22. Resident #23 said he/she had a fall at home and had bruises and injuries. Resident #23 said the nurse changed the bandage every day. Resident #23 then acknowledged that today's date was 8/30/22, which was four days since the last dressing change. Review of Resident #23's medical record indicated the following physician's order dated 8/11/22, left forearm skin tear, wash with normal saline, pat dry, cover with xerofoam and change daily until healed. On 8/30/22 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #23 was observed to be fully dressed. He/she pulled up his/her sleeve and the dressing to the forearm was in place initialed and dated 8/26/22. Review of the nursing progress notes indicated the following: * 8/26/22 at 15:02 (3:02 P.M.) indicated skin tear to left forearm dry, OTA (open to air.) * 8/28/22 at 23:07 (11:07 P.M.) skin tear to left forearm dry, OTA. During an interview on 8/30/22 at 3:33 P.M., Nurse #1 said Resident #23 had a skin tear on his/her left arm that was dry and did not need a dressing. Review of the electronic treatment administration record (E-TAR) with Nurse #1, indicated the daily dressing had stopped on 8/27/22. Nurse #1 and the surveyor went to Resident #23's room and observed the left forearm dressing dated 8/26/22. Nurse #1 removed the dressing and said the area was a healed skin tear approximately four inches in length, with approximately one inch of scabbing in the middle. Nurse #1 said the dressing should have been removed. During an interview on 8/31/22 8:27 A.M. the Director of Nursing said the Resident #23's dressing on the forearm was discontinued on 8/27/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an accurate medical record for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include: Resident #2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an accurate medical record for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include: Resident #23 was admitted in August of 2022 with diagnoses that include chronic kidney disease, repeated falls, muscle weakness and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 8/15/22 indicated Resident #23 scored a 13 out of 15, on the brief interview of mental status indicating he/she is cognitively intact. On 8/30/22 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #23 was observed sitting up in a chair in his/her room eating his/her breakfast. Resident #23's arm was uncovered, and a dressing was on his/her left forearm, initialed and dated 8/26/22. Resident #23 said he/she had a fall at home and had bruises and injuries. Resident #23 said the nurse change the bandage, daily. He/she then acknowledged that today's date was 8/30/22 which was four days since the last dressing change. Review of Resident #23's medical record indicated the following physician's order dated 8/11/22, left forearm skin tear, wash with normal saline, pat dry, cover with xerofoam and change daily until healed. Review of the nursing progress notes indicated the following: * 8/26/22 at 15:02 (3:02 P.M.) indicated skin tear to left forearm dry, OTA (open to air.) * 8/28/22 at 23:07 (11:07 P.M.) skin tear to left forearm dry, OTA. The nursing progress notes dated 8/26/22 and 8/28/22 fail to indicate the presence of a dressing on Resident #23's forearm dated and initialed 8/26/22. During an interview on 8/30/22 at 3:33 P.M., Nurse #1 said Resident #23 had a skin tear on his/her left arm that was dry and did not need a dressing. Review of the electronic treatment administration record (E-TAR) with Nurse #1, indicated the daily dressing had stopped on 8/27/22. Nurse #1 and the surveyor went to Resident #23's room and observed the left forearm dressing dated 8/26/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to notify residents, resident representatives and families of a new COVID-19 positive staff member by 5:00 P.M. the next calend...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to notify residents, resident representatives and families of a new COVID-19 positive staff member by 5:00 P.M. the next calendar day. Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, IC 405 Covid-19, dated 11/15/21, indicated that the centers (facility) must inform residents, their representatives and families of those residing in the Center by 5:00 P.M. the next calendar day following the occurrence of a single confirmed infection of Covid-19. During review of the Covid-19 Staff Surveillance Testing Log, indicated that on 8/20/22, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 reported to work for the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shift and was tested utilizing the Binex system. CNA #1 was found to be positive for Covid-19. During review of the progress notes, within the clinical records for 2 sampled residents (#3 and #5), from 8/20/22 through 8/31/22, indicated there was no documentation that either resident or their families/representatives were notified that a facility staff member had tested positive for Covid-19 on 8/20/22. During an interview on 8/31/22 at 11:33 A.M., the Administrator said that staff contact residents verbally and families or their representatives by phone. He said that they used to document the conversations in the resident chart, but stopped doing that in May 2022 because it was difficult to find the time to get all the information in the residents' chart.
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 A (93/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Massachusetts.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
  • • 28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Lasell House's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LASELL HOUSE 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 Lasell House Staffed?

CMS rates LASELL HOUSE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 28%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lasell House?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at LASELL HOUSE during 2022 to 2023. These included: 6 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Lasell House?

LASELL HOUSE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 44 certified beds and approximately 22 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEWTON, Massachusetts.

How Does Lasell House Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, LASELL HOUSE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (28%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lasell House?

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 Lasell House Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LASELL HOUSE 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 Lasell House Stick Around?

Staff at LASELL HOUSE tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 28%, the facility is 18 percentage points below the Massachusetts average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 25%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Lasell House Ever Fined?

LASELL HOUSE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Lasell House on Any Federal Watch List?

LASELL HOUSE 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.