ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Alliance Health at Maples has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but not outstanding in quality. It ranks #66 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 33 in Norfolk County, meaning there are only six local options that are better. The facility is improving, with a reduction in issues from 11 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 26%, significantly lower than the state average. However, there are concerning fines of $47,886, which is average, suggesting some compliance issues. Additionally, there is less RN coverage than 80% of Massachusetts facilities, which is a drawback as registered nurses can catch potential problems that other staff might miss. Specific incidents of concern include a resident being allowed to fall multiple times due to inadequate supervision, leading to a serious injury, and failures in infection control practices, such as not ensuring staff performed proper hand hygiene after procedures. While the facility has its strengths, these weaknesses highlight areas that need attention.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Massachusetts
- #66/338
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $47,886 in fines. Higher than 57% of Massachusetts facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (26%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (26%)
22 points below Massachusetts average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
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 21 deficiencies on record
Jul 2024
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision to one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents, who was identified as a high fall ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative was notified of a change in treatment for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Spe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, for one Resident (#88), of three closed records reviewed, the facility failed to document the recapitulation of the Resident's stay that included his/her co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#13 and #15), out of five residents selected for unnecessary medication review, that each Resident's drug reg...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for two Residents (#112 and #233), out of a total sample of 27 residen...
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
2. Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Management, revised 11/15/22, indicated but was not limited to:
- Care plan the psychoactive medication use, supportive diagnoses, goa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a hearing assistive device in a timely manner for one Resident (#29), out of a sample of 27 residents.
Findings include:
Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders for oxygen use prior to administration for one Resident (#384), in a total s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to follow their policy and consistently complete the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) of an anticoagulant agent (blood thinner) prescribed for one Reside...
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 document review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#2), out of a total sample of 27 residents, was free from a significant medication error when an ant...
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
3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in November 2017 with diagnoses which included acute kidney disease and infection and inflammatory reaction due to an indwelling urethral catheter.
Review o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmissi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff completed the Comprehensive MDS Assessment within the required time frame for six Residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete Quarterly MDS assessments timely for 15 Residents (#42, #25, #18, #119, #105, #15, #10, #53, #77,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of a newly developed open pressure area for one Resident (#6) in a total sample of 27 Residents.
F...
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 record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 follow standards of practice by not obtaining a physici...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident (#6), with a pressure injury, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services were consistent...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 ensure that a follow up with urology was provided to one Resident (#59) with a catheter, out of a total sample of 27 Residents.
Findings in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care and services for one resident (#90) receiving dialysis.
Specifically, for Resident #90, the facility failed to develop a...
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
- • 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $47,886 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Alliance Health At Maples's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES 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 Alliance Health At Maples Staffed?
CMS rates ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 26%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Alliance Health At Maples?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 18 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Alliance Health At Maples?
ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ALLIANCE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 144 certified beds and approximately 127 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WRENTHAM, Massachusetts.
How Does Alliance Health At Maples Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (26%) 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 Alliance Health At Maples?
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 Alliance Health At Maples Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES 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 Alliance Health At Maples Stick Around?
Staff at ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 26%, the facility is 20 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 28%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Alliance Health At Maples Ever Fined?
ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES has been fined $47,886 across 1 penalty action. The Massachusetts average is $33,558. 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 Alliance Health At Maples on Any Federal Watch List?
ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES 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.