RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE

DEACONESS ROAD, W CONCORD, MA 01742 (978) 369-5151
Non profit - Corporation 151 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#50 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Rivercrest Long Term Care has received a Trust Grade of A, indicating it is an excellent facility that is highly recommended. It ranks #50 out of 338 nursing homes in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #14 out of 72 in Middlesex County, meaning only 13 local facilities are better. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 2 in 2024 to 1 in 2025, with no serious or life-threatening problems reported. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect 5-star rating and only 39% turnover, which is on par with the state average, ensuring that staff are familiar with the residents. However, there are some concerns, including incidents where a resident fell after not having a call bell within reach, and another resident was not wearing non-skid socks as required, which could have increased their fall risk. Additionally, there were issues with medication labeling and storage, which indicate some procedural weaknesses that the facility needs to address. Overall, while Rivercrest has significant strengths, families should be aware of these specific concerns when considering it as a care option.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Massachusetts
#50/338
Top 14%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 80 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
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 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 staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

Nov 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, and whose comprehensive plan of care indicated ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls, and whose comprehensive plan of care indicated the call bell was to be within his/her reach when he/she was in his/her room, the Facility failed to ensure staff consistently implemented and followed this intervention, when on 10/15/24, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 left Resident #1 alone in his/her room without a call bell within reach, Resident #1 fell, later complained of pain, and was diagnosed several days later with a fractured finger. Findings include: Review of the Facility's policy, titled Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, dated 09/2013, indicated that an individualized, comprehensive care plan would be developed for each resident. Review of the Facility's policy, titled Fall Prevention and Management Plan, dated 11/02/18, indicated the Facility assesses each resident for his/her risk of falls, designs a plan for care, and implements procedures to minimize falls and/or injury. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in November 2023, diagnoses included history of falls, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of Resident #1's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 08/01/24, indicated he/she was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for falls. Review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/01/24, indicated he/she required supervision/touching assistance for transfers and was moderately cognitively impaired with a score of 12 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- score of 13-15 suggests cognitively intact, 08-12 suggests moderately cognitively impaired, 00-07 suggests severe cognitive impairment). Review of Resident #1's Falls Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with his/her August 2024 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, indicated he/she had an intervention, dated as initiated 12/21/23, for the call bell to be within his/her reach when he/she was in his/her room. Review of Resident #1's Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Care Plan, undated, indicated to provide him/her with the call bell when in his/her room. Review of Resident #1's Post Fall Evaluation Form, dated 10/15/24 and completed by Nurse #2, indicated Resident #1 sustained an unwitnessed fall at 4:30 P.M., when he/she was found by nursing to be seated on the floor in his/her room. The Form indicated Resident #1's call bell was not within reach at the time of the fall and Resident #1 told nursing staff that he/she was trying to get into bed. The Form also indicated that Resident #1 had weakness/fatigue with recent fever/cold/cough due to recent Covid-19 illness. During a telephone interview on 11/14/24 at 3:42 P.M., Nurse #2 said she was the charge nurse on duty during the evening shift (3:00 P.M. through 11:00 P.M.) on 10/15/24 when she was told by another staff member that Resident #1 sustained a fall in his/her room. Nurse #2 said when she entered Resident #1's room, she observed the positions of the wheelchair, bed and bed side table, and she also observed that Resident #1's call bell was on the bed (toward the right side, opposite of where Resident #1 was seated). Nurse #2 said Resident #1 could not have reached his/her call bell from his/her wheelchair. Nurse #2 said Resident #1 used his/her call bell to request staff assistance. Review of the Post Fall Witness Statement, dated 10/15/24 and signed by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, indicated she had assisted Resident #1 to the bathroom at 4:10 P.M., then left Resident #1 in his/her room, per Resident #1's request. During a telephone interview on 11/14/24 at 2:14 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said she worked at the Facility through a staffing agency and was assigned to care for Resident #1 on the evening shift of 10/15/24. CNA #1 said Resident #1 had used his/her call bell at 4:10 P.M. to request to go to the bathroom. CNA #1 said she assisted Resident #1 in the bathroom and following that, Resident #1 requested to stay in his/her room. CNA #1 said she left Resident #1 seated in his/her wheelchair in his/her room on the left side of his/her bed. CNA #1 said she did not know if Resident #1's call bell was left within his/her reach. CNA #1 said she was alerted by nursing a few minutes later that Resident #1 had sustained a fall in his/her room. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Practitioner (NP) note, dated 10/16/24, indicated Resident #1 reported discomfort to his/her left wrist which appeared to be bruised and discolored. During an interview on 11/14/24 at 11:30 A.M., Resident #1 said he/she used the call bell to request assistance from staff to go to the bathroom or to get in and out of bed. Review of Resident #1's x-ray report, dated 10/16/24, indicated there was no fracture of the left wrist, and no acute fractures throughout the left fingers. Review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Note, dated 10/18/24, indicated Resident #1 continued to complain of left wrist and left finger pain. The Nurse Practitioner was notified and gave an order for another x-ray of Resident #1's left wrist and fingers to be done at the hospital. Review of Resident #1's hospital radiology report, dated 10/19/24, indicated an intra-articular fracture of the base of the proximal phalanx of the third digit (break in the bone between the second and third knuckle of the third finger). Review of Resident #1's Orthopedic Consult, dated 10/28/24, indicated to use a splint for comfort and weight bear as tolerated. During an interview on 11/14/24 at 1:55 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3 said Resident #1 does use his/her call bell to alert staff of his/her needs. CNA #3 said staff were responsible to ensure Resident #1 had his/her call bell within reach when he/she was in his/her room. During a telephone interview on 11/15/24 at 2:37 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that Resident #1's call bell was not within his/her reach at the time of his/her fall on 10/15/24. The DON said it was her expectation that staff always follow each resident's plan of care.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
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 and record review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented for one Resident (#20) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, for Resident #20 the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented for one Resident (#20) out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, for Resident #20 the facility failed to ensure he/she was wearing non-skid socks and had a bed alarm in place, as indicated in the falls plan of care. Findings include: The facility policy titled Fall Prevention and Management, dated 11/2/18, indicated the following: -The Center assesses each resident for his or her risk for falls, designs a plan of care, and implements procedures to minimize falls and/or injury. B. Prevention. 1. General safety precautions and interventions may include: e. Promoting resident use of non-slip footwear/proper shoes when ambulating. 3. Prevention strategies to be implemented are listed on the plan of care. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 and had diagnoses that included a fall resulting in an L2 compression fracture and depression. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/1/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #20 scored a 12 out of a possible 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #20 had no behaviors and for putting on/taking off footwear requires substantial/maximal assistance. Review of the record indicates that since admission Resident #20 has sustained 8 falls, including two that required hospitalization and one that resulted in a sternal fracture. Review of the current Falls care plan for Resident #20 indicated the following interventions: -Call light within reach when in room, start 12/21/23. -Offer/assist resident to BR (bathroom) upon rising after meals and before bed, start 12/21/23. -Keep room free of clutter, start 12/21/23. -Resident will have non-skid socks on at all times, start 1/21/24. -Non-skid markings to floor on each side of the bed, start 2/5/24. -Call, don't fall signs posted in room as a reminder to call for assistance, start 2/5/24. -Alarm mat to bed to remind resident to not rise unassisted, start 2/9/24. -Obtain urine to r/o (rule out) infection, start 3/18/24. -Consult Psych regarding aggressive behavior resulting in a fall, 3/18/24. -Alarm mat to w/c (wheelchair) as a reminder to not rise unassisted, start 6/3/24. -Staff reminders if a resident moves rooms, all equipment should go with them including alarms, start 6/27/24. Further review of the record failed to indicate Resident #20 refused to wear non-skid socks at all times. Review of the Falls report, dated 6/22/24, indicated the following: -Resident #20 sustained a fall in his/her bedroom on 6/22/24 at 7:15 P.M. A nurse was going to assist a resident in another room when she observed Resident #20 walking in his/her room from the bed to the wheelchair. According to the report Resident #20 was barefoot at the time of the fall and the bed alarm was not sounding because the Resident had had a recent room change and the alarm was not moved with the Resident. During an interview on 9/5/24 at 12:27 P.M., with Resident #20's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2, he said that Resident #20 is unsteady on his/her feet, requires staff assistance to put on socks and shoes and has no behavior of refusing assistance with dressing. CNA #2 said he was not working at the time of Resident #20's fall in June and was not sure what had occurred. During an interview 9/5/24 at 12:53 P.M., with the Nurse Unit Manager (#1) she said that when a resident has a room change, all their items and specialized interventions such as a bed alarm should be moved with them. She said that this had accidentally not happened when Resident #20 changed rooms in June, because the move was temporary. Nurse Unit Manager #1 said that if a resident is care planned to wear non-skid socks at all times, they should be wearing them and if not, the reason should be documented. During an interview on 9/5/24 at 1:14 P.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) she said that she expects all care plan intervention to be followed and that Resident #20's bed alarm should have been moved with him/her when he/she changed rooms in June.
Sept 2023 3 deficiencies
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were properly labeled, topical medications were stored separately from oral medications in one of one medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were properly labeled, topical medications were stored separately from oral medications in one of one medication carts and eye drops were properly labeled in one out of one medication rooms observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration General Guidelines, not dated, indicated the following: *Do not store treatment preparations in the medication cart. *Do not pre-pour medications. Once medications are poured for administration, they are not to be stored in the medication cart. 1. On 9/26/23, at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor observed a medication cup in the top drawer of a medication cart containing 6 pills. The pills were not labeled. The surveyor also observed the following in the medication cart: 2 tubes of Diclofenac Sodium topical cream (used to treat pain). 1 bottle of wound cleanser. 4 tubes of Triamcinolone cream (used to treat eczema). 1 bottle of antifungal powder. 4 tubes Phytoplex cream. 1 tube Clobetasol Propionate shampoo (used to treat psoriasis and dermatitis). 1 bottle Ketoconazole shampoo (used to treat fungal conditions of the scalp) 1 tube Aquaphor cream 1 tube Lidocaine ointment 5% (used to relieve pain) 2 bottle of body lotion. 2 tubes of body cream. During an interview on 9/26/23, at 2:02 P.M., Nurse #1 said she was not aware that treatments were to be stored separately from oral medications. Nurse #1 said the medication cup containing 6 unlabeled pills were for a resident who was at a doctor's appointment. Nurse #1 then said that she should not have pre-poured the medication.
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 and interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination during observations of the breakfast meal. Findings include: During observations of brea...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination during observations of the breakfast meal. Findings include: During observations of breakfast service on 9/27/23 at 8:08 A.M. the cook was wearing gloves which he contaminated by touching a thermometer while taking the temperatures of the food items, and by touching the tops of food covers. With the same contaminated gloved hands the cook opened a package of bread and placed four slices of bread in the toaster. The cook then began plating foods with the same contaminated gloved hands touching utensils for items such as hot cereal or eggs, and with the same contaminated gloved hands, picked up ready to eat pieces of toast and scones to be served to the residents. At that time, the surveyor approached Team Leader #1 and inquired about the use of using gloved hands to touch the handles of utensils, the toaster and food items like toast and scones. Team Leader #1 said that the utensils are clean for the individual food items but that he/she should use tongs for the toast and scones. The cook then continued to plate two more plates using the same contaminated gloved hands picking up scones and toast.
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 record review and interview the facility failed to accurately transcribe a physician's order related to the treatment o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately transcribe a physician's order related to the treatment of a pressure ulcer for one Resident (#7) out of a total of 12 sampled Residents. Findings include: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses including peripheral venous insufficiency and glaucoma. Review of his/her Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 scored 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam indicating he/she is cognitively intact and requires assistance with ambulation, transfers and personal hygiene. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #7 had developed a pressure ulcer on his/her sacrum on 8/13/23 measuring 1 centimeter (CM) X .3 CM X .4 CM. Review of the Nurse Practitioner note dated 8/16/23 indicated: Complaint/Nature of presenting problem: Pressure ulcer to buttock. Patient is being seen for red sacrum .instructed to use Calazyme cream and use Calcium [Alginate] 3x a week. Review of Resident #7's Physician's orders for August 2023 indicated the Nurse Practitioner's instructions to use Calcium Alginate were never brought forward. During an interview on 9/26/23 at 12:59 P.M., Nurse #2 said that when a resident develops a pressure ulcer staff notify the physician who would then assess and prescribes treatment orders. Nurse #2 then reviewed the clinical record with the surveyor and said that she could not see that the Nurse Practitioner's instructions to use Calcium Alginate were added to Resident #7's physician's orders.
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 (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.
  • • Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
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 Rivercrest Long Term Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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 Rivercrest Long Term Care Staffed?

CMS rates RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above 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 Rivercrest Long Term Care?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE during 2023 to 2024. These included: 5 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Rivercrest Long Term Care?

RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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 151 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 23% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in W CONCORD, Massachusetts.

How Does Rivercrest Long Term Care Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rivercrest Long Term Care?

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 Rivercrest Long Term Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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 Rivercrest Long Term Care Stick Around?

RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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 Rivercrest Long Term Care Ever Fined?

RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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 Rivercrest Long Term Care on Any Federal Watch List?

RIVERCREST LONG TERM CARE 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.