LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Life Care Center of Stoneham has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #163 out of 338 nursing homes in Massachusetts places it in the top half of facilities in the state, but this does not reflect well when considering the overall grade. The facility is showing signs of improvement, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing levels are average, with a turnover rate of 39%, which is in line with the state average, and the facility has better RN coverage than 88% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting some strength in nursing oversight. However, it has incurred $39,559 in fines, which is concerning and indicates recurring compliance issues. Notable incidents include a resident suffering an unwitnessed fall without proper assessment or documentation by the nursing staff, leading to severe pain and an emergency hospital transfer. While there are some positive elements, such as staffing and improvements in trends, the serious incidents raise significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #163/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $39,559 in fines. Higher than 90% of Massachusetts facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Massachusetts. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 34 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
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Massachusetts average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Massachusetts average (2.9)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Massachusetts avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
3 deficiencies
3 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 during the overnight shift (11:00 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 during the overnight shift (11:00...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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 during the overnight shift (11:00...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence was maintained for residents who require assistance with meals.
Findings Include:
Review of facility policy tit...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
3. Review of facility policy titled Skin Integrity & Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention and Management, dated as reviewed 7/9/24, indicated the following:
-A skin assessment/ inspection should be perfor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good groo...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure standards of quality care were implemented for one Resident (#43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice for food service safety by failing to perform proper hand hygiene.
Findings include: ...
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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two Residents (#31 and #43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically,
1. Nu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0839
(Tag F0839)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional staff are licensed, certified, or registered in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) whose Physicians Orders included the administr...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of constipation, and had Physician's Order on 07/19/24 and 07/25/24, for Nursing to insert ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
15 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of care for one Resident (#5), out of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff implemented orders for one Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for the residents on the first floor unit.
Findings include:
Review of the facility p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
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 honor 1 Resident's (#174) right to refuse treatment out of a total ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident Protected Health Information (PHI) was secure and not visible to others on one of two nursing units.
Findings include:
Revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 2 hours as required for 1 Resident (#324) out of a total sample of 21 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1) investigate an allegation of negle...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement a skin integrity care plan for 1 Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with meals as needed for 2 Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or m...
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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 Resident (#25) out of a total sample of 21 residents.
Findings include:
1. Resident ...
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
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that infection control measures were maintained during medication pass.
Findings include:
1. Resident #25 was admitted t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that it is free from medication rates of 5% or greater.
Findings include:
Review of the facility policy titled Administ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications 1. were stored properly and labeled 2. once opened were dated as required and 3. topical and treatment ite...
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 and interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Findings include:
Review of the facility policy titled Food Saf...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 Residents (#50 and #63) were properly assessed for self-administration of medications out of a total of 19 sampled Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate injuries of unknown origin (bruises) for 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide showers for 2 Residents (#25 and #67) out of a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of greater than 5%. The surveyor observed 2 of 3 licensed nurses make errors whi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely on 1 out of 4 units.
Findings include:
1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in 12/2020 with d...
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. For Resident #25, the facility failed to failed to a.) assist him/her with meals per physician's orders and his/her plan of c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 39% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 harm violation(s), $39,559 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 34 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $39,559 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Life Of Stoneham's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Life Of Stoneham Staffed?
CMS rates LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Life Of Stoneham?
State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm and 29 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Life Of Stoneham?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 94 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STONEHAM, Massachusetts.
How Does Life Of Stoneham Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Life Of Stoneham?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Life Of Stoneham Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Life Of Stoneham Stick Around?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Life Of Stoneham Ever Fined?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has been fined $39,559 across 2 penalty actions. The Massachusetts average is $33,474. 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 Life Of Stoneham on Any Federal Watch List?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM 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.