LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Loomis Lakeside at Reeds Landing has an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating it is highly recommended and performs above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #37 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 25 in Hampden County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility is improving, with a decrease in reported issues from 5 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, receiving a perfect 5/5 stars and a low turnover rate of 16%, significantly better than the state average of 39%. While there are no fines, which is positive, the facility has faced some concerns, including failing to implement proper infection control practices and maintain food safety standards, such as ensuring that food was properly labeled and stored. Overall, while there are notable strengths in staffing and overall ratings, potential families should be aware of the recent concerns regarding infection control and food safety practices.
- Trust Score
- A
- In Massachusetts
- #37/338
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 16% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 32 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 50 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Massachusetts. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (16%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (16%)
32 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 13 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#14) out of a total sample ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one Resident (#34) out of a total sample of 12 residents.
Specifically, the facility f...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control practice standards to prev...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow Physician's orders for one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 12 residents.
Specifically,
1. For Resident #14, the facility st...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 and interview, the facility failed to practice acceptable standards of infection control and prevention for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccination per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reco...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in April 2021 with diagnoses including: Diabetes, chronic lower extremity edema (swe...
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, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in the kitchen and adhere to safe food practices relative to labeling, dating and re...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a Notice of Transfer and Discharge to the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative in writing up...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#14) out of a total of 12 sampled residents was free from a significant medication error, putting him/he...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accident hazards by failing to to clean the lint filter for two of two clothing dryers in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a.) Food items for resident consumption were stored, labeled, dated, and not expired for three out of three kitch...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in October 2019.
Review of the medical record included a MOLST signed by the Resident and the Physician on 11/19/21 that indicated the following preferences...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Grade A (90/100). 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.
- • 16% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 32 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING 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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing Staffed?
CMS rates LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 16%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING during 2022 to 2024. These included: 13 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing?
LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING 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 42 certified beds and approximately 39 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts.
How Does Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (16%) 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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing?
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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING 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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing Stick Around?
Staff at LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 16%, the facility is 30 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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing Ever Fined?
LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING 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 Loomis Lakeside At Reeds Landing on Any Federal Watch List?
LOOMIS LAKESIDE AT REEDS LANDING 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.