CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B, which means it is considered a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #76 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #10 out of 27 in Plymouth County, indicating only nine local options are better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; while RN coverage is above average-better than 91% of facilities-the turnover rate is concerning at 57%, significantly higher than the state average of 39%. There are no fines reported, which is a positive sign, but specific incidents raise concerns. For example, the facility failed to securely store medications, leaving some unsecured and accessible. Additionally, a lack of a water management plan poses a risk for infections like Legionnaires' disease, and there were issues with food safety practices that could lead to cross-contamination. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and no fines, families should be aware of the rising issues and staffing challenges.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Massachusetts
- #76/338
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 50 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Massachusetts. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
11pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
9 points above Massachusetts average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident protected health information (PHI) was secure and not visible to others on one of one nursing units.
Findings include:
Accord...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed for one Resident (#6), out of a total sample of 15 residents, to ensure that the Resident was free from physical restraints. Spe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident ( #28), out of a total sample...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to:
1. Ensure grievance forms were available in resident care and public areas, so residents and/or visitors were able to access...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure activity programs were offered consistently on Sundays to meet the needs of residents residing on one of one units in the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that for one Resident (#28), out of a total sample of 15 residents, that the resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary psychot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee which included the required members at their meetings. Specific...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, hospice contract review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents in one of two dining areas experienced a dignified and homelike dining experience. Specifically, staff stood while assisting...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that all biologicals and medications no longer in use (medicat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prev...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
4 deficiencies
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, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure staff met professional standards of practice for two Residents (#31, #52), out of a total sample of 14 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision for the prevention of accidents for one Resident (#6), out of a total sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the pain management program was implemented for two Residents (#52, #6), out of a total sample of 14 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 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.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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 65 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SCITUATE, Massachusetts.
How Does Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 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 Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Cardigan Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
CARDIGAN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.