EXETER CENTER

8 HAMPTON ROAD, EXETER, NH 03833 (603) 778-0531
For profit - Corporation 81 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#34 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: April 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Exeter Center has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average in quality and care. It ranks #34 out of 73 nursing homes in New Hampshire, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #7 out of 12 in Rockingham County, indicating that only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with reported issues decreasing from 5 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 46%, which is below the state average of 50%, suggesting that staff members tend to stay longer and are familiar with the residents. However, recent fines totaling $28,912 are concerning, as they are higher than 87% of other facilities in New Hampshire, indicating possible compliance issues. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a serious failure to follow a resident's bowel management protocol, resulting in hospitalization, and a lack of sufficient staffing to meet residents' needs on multiple shifts. Additionally, there was a concern regarding improperly labeled injectable medications, which poses potential health risks. While Exeter Center has some strengths in staffing and overall care, these significant issues highlight areas in need of improvement.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In New Hampshire
#34/73
Top 46%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$28,912 in fines. Lower than most New Hampshire facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Hampshire. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near New Hampshire average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $28,912

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 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, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that open injectable medications were labeled in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that open injectable medications were labeled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in 1 of 1 medication room observed. Findings Include: Observation on 4/21/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff G (Licensed Practical Nurse) in the Chase Unit Medication Room revealed an open multi-dose vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (Mantoux) without an open date or an open expiration date in the medication refrigerator. Interview on 4/21/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of Staff G confirmed the above findings. Review on 4/21/25 of the Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (Mantoux) manufacturer instructions revealed A vial .which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded . Review on 4/21/25 of the facility policy titled Medications and Medication Labels dated 1/25 revealed PROCEDURES .2. Multi-dose vials shall be labeled to assure product integrity, considering the manufacturers' specifications .Nursing staff should document the date opened on multi-dose vials on the attached auxiliary label .
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, interview and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food is stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food is stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 out of 1 kitchen observed. Finding Include: Observation on 4/21/25 at approximately 8:20 a.m. in the kitchen with Staff A (Dietary Cook) revealed the following: A small dish of salad covered in plastic wrap without a preparation or use by date in the refrigerator; a clear container with tuna fish covered with plastic wrap, labeled tuna fish with a date of 4/14 (preparation date) in the refrigerator; a clear container with chicken salad covered in plastic wrap, labeled chicken salad with date of 4/13 (preparation date) in the refrigerator; a stainless steel bowl containing cubes of cooked potatoes uncovered without a preparation date; a plastic bag containing 7 thawed chicken breasts dated 4/15 (date pulled from the freezer) in the walk-in refrigerator; a case of cucumbers with 6 cucumbers that is leaking fluid, had black spots, and soft to touch in the walk-in refrigerator; a stainless steel pan containing thawed sliced deli ham dated 3/12 (date pulled from the freezer) in the walk-in refrigerator; and a stainless steel pan continuing thawed sliced salami dated 3/5 (date pulled from the freezer) in the walk-in refrigerator. Interview on 4/21/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A (Dietary Cook) confirmed the above findings. Review on 4/21/25 of the facility's policy titled Food Storage: Cold Foods, Revised 9/2017, revealed .Procedures 5. All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination . Review on 4/21/25 of the facility's policy titled Food Storage and Retention Guide,with no date, revealed .Ready-To-Eat/Prepared Foods .(Examples: leftovers, deli salads, cut produce .Refrigerator .Up to 7 days Day 1 is the day of preparation .Raw Meat/Poultry/Seafood: Fish, seafood, ground meat, and all poultry .Refrigerator .(Once Thawed) .1-2 days . Interview on 4/22/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff B (Dietary Manager) confirmed the above policies. Standard: Review on 4/23/25 of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code, dated 2017, retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/FDA-food-code/food-code-2017 revealed the following: .Chapter 3 Food .3-305.11 Food Storage .Food shall be protected from contamination by storing the Food: .On-premises preparation .(D) A date marking system that meets the criteria stated in (A) and (B) of this section may include: (1) Using a method approved by the regulatory authority for refrigerated, ready-to-eat time/temperature control for safety food that is frequently rewrapped, such as lunchmeat or a roast, or for which date marking is impractical . (3) Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a food establishment, with a procedure to discard the food on or before the last date or day by which the food must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded .; or (4) Using calendar dates, days of the week, color-coded marks, or other effective marking methods .Products which are damaged, spoiled, or otherwise unfit for sale or use in a food establishment may become mistaken for safe and wholesome products and/or cause contamination of other foods . (5) Certain foodborne pathogens that are anaerobes or facultative anaerobes are able to multiply under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions. Therefore special controls are necessary to control their growth. Refrigerated storage temperatures of 5°C (41°F) may be adequate to prevent growth and/or toxin production of some pathogenic microorganisms .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #54 Review on 4/22/25 of Resident #54's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed that Resident #54 had a Stag...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #54 Review on 4/22/25 of Resident #54's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed that Resident #54 had a Stage 2 pressure injury on the right heel. Review on 4/22/25 of Resident #54's admission note, dated 11/12/24, revealed that Resident #54 had a blister [Stage 2 pressure ulcer] on the right heel 4 cm (centimeter ) x (by) 2 cm. Review on 4/22/25 of Resident #54's 5-day MDS assessment with an ARD of 11/15/24 revealed that in Section M0100 Determination of Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk was not coded for resident having pressure ulcer/injury. Further review revealed that Section M0210 Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries was coded 0, indicating not having one or more unhealed pressure ulcer. Interview on 4/23/25 at 10:20 a.m. with Staff C (MDS Coordinator) confirmed that Resident #54 had a Stage 2 pressure that was present on admission and that the above MDS was coded incorrectly. Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly code section M0300(Pressure Ulcers) on 2 of 15 resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments reviewed in a final sample of 15 residents (Resident Identifier #20 and #54). Findings include: Resident #20 Review on 4/21/25 of Resident #20 admission note dated 3/26/25 revealed pressure area present on admission. Review on 4/21/25 of Resident #20's 5-day MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/30/25 revealed M0300 Current number of unhealed pressure B1 Number of stage 2 pressure ulcers was coded 1 and M0300 B2 Number of These Stage 2 pressure ulcers that were present on admission/entry or reentry was coded 0. Review on 4/22/25 of Resident #20's care plan revealed .actual pressure are [sic] on coccyx present upon admission . Interview on 4/22/25 at approximately 1:15 p.m. with Staff C (MDS Nurse) confirmed that Resident #2 has a Stage 2 pressure ulcer present on admission and the above MDS was coded incorrectly.
May 2024 2 deficiencies 1 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

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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 out of 4 residents reviewed for bowel management. A resident required hospitalization when his/her ordered bowel protocol was not followed (Resident Identifiers are #1 and #2). Findings include: Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders .The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Resident #1 Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #1's April 2024's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's orders: Lactulose Oral Solution 10 grams (gm)/15 milliliters (ml), (Lactulose) Give 30 ml by mouth three times (3x) a day for Cirrhosis, Goal 3 Bowel Movements (BM) daily, may hold if greater than (>) 3 BM's, Start Date 4/18/24. Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml (Lactulose), Give 30 ml by mouth as needed for Cirrhosis daily if less than (<) 3 BM's a day, Start Date 4/18/24. Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #1's Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) Bowel Record from 4/17/24 through 4/29/24 revealed the following days that Resident #1 did not have 3 bowl movements: 4/17- no BM; 4/18- no BM; 4/19- 1 BM; 4/20- 2 BMs; 4/23- no BM; 4/24- no BM; 4/25- no BM; 4/26- no BM. Review on 5/30/2024 of Resident #1's MAR for the above dates revealed Lactulose had not been administered as needed when Resident #1 did not have 3 bowel movements daily. Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #1's progress noted, dated 4/26/24, revealed the following: Diagnosis and Plan, Unresponsive - Given patient medical history of Cirrhosis and no bowel movements in four days and changing condition with involuntary twitching and unresponsiveness, patient going to emergency room for evaluation as concerned for Encephalopathy. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m. with Staff C (Registered Nurse) revealed that he/she did not track bowel movements separately from the LNAs, but documented on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) what the LNAs told him/her. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 12:30 with Staff B (Nurse Practitioner) revealed he/she was not notified that Resident #1 did not have any BMs until the fourth day. Staff B stated he/she would've made changes to Resident #1's treatment if notified. Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #1's medical record revealed that Resident #1 had a diagnosis of Hepatic Failure without coma, Onset Date 1/27/24, Metabolic Encephalopathy, Onset Date 1/27/24 and Alcoholic Cirrhosis of Liver without Ascites, Onset Date 1/27/24. Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed that Resident #1 required hospitalization on 4/26/24 for Altered Mental Status. Resident #2 Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #2's May 2024's MAR revealed the following physician's orders: Document the amount of BM's per shift, goal 3 BM's daily, Notify provider if goal is not met every shift, Start Date 5/24/24. Further review revealed Resident #2 did not meet the goals of 3 BM's on the following days: 5/26/24, 5/27/24, and 5/28/24. Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml (Lactulose), Give 30 ml by mouth two times a day for Constipation, hold once 3 BM's achieved for the day, Start Date of 1/20/24. Discontinue (D/C) Date of 5/28/24. Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml (Lactulose) Give 30 ml by mouth as needed for constipation, Start Date 1/20/24. Further review revealed the as needed dose was administered on 5/14/24. Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #2's LNA Bowel Record from 5/1/24 through 5/29/24 revealed that Resident #2 did not have 3 bowel movements on the following days: 5/1/24- 2 BMs, 5/2/24- 1 BM, 5/3/24- 2 BMs, 5/4/24- no BM, 5/5/24- 1 BM, 5/7/24- 1 BM, 5/8/24- 1 BM, 5/9/24- no BM, 5/10/24- 1 BM, 5/11/24- 1 BM, 5/12/24- 1 BM, 5/13/24- no BM, 5/14/24- 2 BMs, 5/15/24- 2 BMs, 5/16/24- 2 BMs, 5/17/24- 1 BM, 5/18/24- 1 BM, 5/19/24- 1 BM, 5/20/24- no BMs, 5/21/24- no BMs, 5/22/24- 2 BMs, 5/23/24- 2 BMs, 5/25/24- 2 BMs, 5/26/24- no BM, 5/27/24- 2 BMs, and 5/29/24- 2 BMs. Review on 5/30/24 of Resident #2's medical record revealed that Resident #2 had a diagnosis of Alcoholic Cirrhosis of Liver without Ascites, Onset Date 11/22/22. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 12:30 with Staff B revealed that Staff B was not notified that the above resident did not have 3 bowel movements a day on the above days. Review on 5/30/24 of the facility policy titled, NSG122 Change in Condition: Notification of, Revision Date 6/1/21 revealed: .Policy .A center must immediately inform the resident/patient (hereinafter patient), consult with the patient's physician, .where there is: . A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue or change an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment; .
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs in April 2024 and May 2024. Findings include: Review on 5/30/24 of the Facility Assessment revealed Consider the overall needs of your resident population based on your Facility Assessment, MDS [Minimum Data Set], Resident Population Profile and any additional source when indicating the number, average, range or ratio needed. Further review of the Facility Assessment revealed the following staffing levels for direct care staff: [NAME] - 1 Nurse [Registered Nurse (RN)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)], 2 LNAs [Licensed Nurse Aide] day and eves, 1 Nurse, 1 LNA nights. [NAME] - 1 Nurse, 2 LNAs days and eves, 1 Nurse, 1 LNA nights. Review on 5/30/24 of the Daily Staffing Sheets from April 23, 2024 to May 30, 2024, revealed the following 6 shifts (over 4 days) in April and 22 shifts (over 16 days) in May with LNA/Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) staffing that does not meet levels outlined in the Facility Assessment: 4/23/24 - Tuesday - Day shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit census 18 4/23/24 - Tuesday - Eve shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 23 4/24/24 - Wednesday - Day shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 4/24/24 - Wednesday - Eve shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 4/25/24 - Thursday - Day shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 4/30/24 - Tuesday - Day shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/1/24 - Wednesday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/1/24 - Wednesday - Eve Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 0 CNA - Unit census 19 5/2/24 - Thursday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/3/24 - Friday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/3/24 - Friday - Night Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 RN, 0 CNA - Unit census 19 5/4/24 - Saturday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/5/24 - Sunday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit census 23 5/6/24 - Monday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/8/24 - Wednesday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/9/24 - Thursday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/10/24 - Friday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 23 5/10/24 - Friday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/10/24 - Friday - Eve Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/11/24 - Saturday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/11/24 - Saturday - Eve Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/12/24 - Sunday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/15/24 - Wednesday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/16/24 - Thursday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/17/24 - Saturday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/2124 - Tuesday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 5/21/24 - Tuesday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 25 5/30/24 - Thursday - Day Shift - [NAME] Hall - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 19 Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 9:35 a.m. with Staff C (Anonymous) stated, LNA staffing is a very serious concern here. Residents get up between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and with one LNA on they're running around non-stop, sometimes not able to get a break. Nurses help LNAs when they can but have their own tasks to tend to. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 9:45 a.m. with Staff D (Anonymous) stated, The wait times for residents can be really long because there's not enough LNAs on. One LNA is not enough on any given unit. We need two LNAs on per unit. It seems Administration only considers census and not acuity when they schedule staff. Mealtimes can be challenging and there are delays in feeding residents. Some units have Residents that need lifts and that requires two staff that's hard to come by. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff E (Anonymous) and Staff F (Anonymous), stated, We all try to help each other out, but one LNA is not enough. We need two LNAs when we have residents with heavier loads. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Resident #4 on [NAME] Hall revealed, Days, evenings, and shift change is usually when we have the longest waits, varying sometimes from 10-15 minutes and up to 20-40 minutes, depending on staff call outs. There have been times when I use my call bell, but staff don't make it here before I soil myself (fecal matter). One LNA is not enough to provide care that everyone needs. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 10:30 a.m. with Resident #3 on Chase Unit stated, No, there's not enough staff, not enough aides. Sometimes when only one aide changes me in bed, I feel like I'm going to fall out of bed. The call bell waits vary, from 5 minutes up to 45 minutes. They could use at least two aides on the unit. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 10:45 a.m. with Resident #2 on [NAME] Hall stated, Only sometimes do they have enough staff, but not usually. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 11:15 a.m. with Staff G (Anonymous) stated, Ideally there should be two LNAs on [NAME] and [NAME] Halls. With only one LNA on a unit, it can be rough. Interview on 5/30/24 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Resident #5 stated, I regularly attend Resident Council, and staffing here has been a chronic and considerable problem for many months on all shifts. They'll hire two staff, then two staff quit. They can never catch up. One LNA is absolutely not enough on any unit. One LNA is left running around trying to get people up in the mornings for breakfast, but sometimes they're only able to get half the residents ready for the meal, while the other half still in bed have to wait to eat.
Apr 2024 3 deficiencies
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, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and failed to ensure that staff were we...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and failed to ensure that staff were wearing proper hair restraints in the main kitchen. Findings include: Observation on 4/23/24 at 08:20 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen, revealed Staff E (Cook) serving scrambled eggs onto plates. Further observation revealed Staff E had facial hair and was not wearing a facial hair restraint. Interview on 04/23/24 at approximately 8:25 a.m. with Staff E confirmed that he/she did not wear a facial hair restraints when serving food. Review on 04/25/24 of the facility policy titled Staff Attire undated, revealed Procedures .1. All staff members will have their hair off the shoulders, confined in a hair net or cap, and facial hair properly restrained. Review on 04/25/24 of Chapter 2 of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) food code 2022 Management and Personnel document section 2-402 Hair Restraints 2-402.11 Effectiveness (A) Except as provided in ¶ (B) of this section, FOOD EMPLOYEES shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed FOOD; clean EQUIPMENT, UTENSILS, and LINENS; and unwrapped SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls in a final sample of 16 (Resident identifier is #18). Findings include: Review on 4/26/24 of professional nursing standard: Fundamentals of Nursing, [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009 revealed: Page 336 - Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician ' s orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Observation on 4/23/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. revealed a gauze border dressing without a date on his/her right elbow. Interview on 4/23/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Resident #18 revealed the injury to his/her right elbow may have been a result of resident #18's recent fall. Review on 4/24/24 of Resident #18's orders, skin/wound assessments, change in condition (fall dated 4/16/24) report, treatment records, care plans, and progress notes had no documentation of right elbow injury. Interview on 4/25/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed there was no documentation and no order for dressings. Interview on 4/25/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff B confirmed above findings. Review on 4/25/24 of facility policy titled NSG236 Skin integrity and Wound Management with a revision date of 2/1/23 revealed . under section called Practice Standards .5. The nursing assistant will observe skin daily and report any changes or concerns to the nurse. 6. The nurse will: 6.1 Evaluate any reported or suspected skin changes or wounds. 6.2 Document newly identified skin/wound impairments as a change in condition.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers in a final sample of 16 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers in a final sample of 16 residents (Resident identifier is #43). Findings include: Review on 4/24/24 of Resident #43's current orders revealed an order dated 4/8/24 for wound care to left posterior thigh pressure area: Cleanse with NSS [normal saline] and apply [name brand] dressing every 3 days next treatment due 4/11/24 on 7-3 shift. Review on 4/24/24 of Resident #43's April 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no wound care order or treatment documentation. Interview on 4/24/24 at approximately 11:15 a.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse) confirmed that the treatment had not been added to the TAR. Review on 4/24/24 of Resident #43's Wound Evaluations listed the location as rear right thigh. Interview on 4/24/24 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed above the findings and revealed that the above wound evaluations were done of the left right thigh, not the right thigh.
Mar 2023 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physicians' orders for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physicians' orders for 1 out of 28 medication administrations observed (Resident identifier is #102). Findings include: Standard: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Observation on 3/22/23 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff B (Registered Nurse) revealed that Staff B dispensed two tablets of over the counter (OTC) Bisacodyl 5 milligram (mg) in a medication cup. Observation also revealed that Staff B administered the two tablets of OTC Bisacodyl 5 mg to Resident #102. Record review on 3/22/23 at approximately 8:45 a.m. during observation with Staff B revealed that Resident #102's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) had no order for two Bisacodyl 5 mg tablets to be given by mouth. The EMAR revealed an order for Dulcolax (brand name of Bisacodyl) 10 mg suppository to be given rectally as needed for constipation. Interview on 3/22/23 at approximately 8:50 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above findings.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper storage of expir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper storage of expired medications for 2 of 2 medication carts observed (Resident identifiers are #25 and #38). Findings include: Chase front medication cart Observation on 3/22/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff C (Registered Nurse) revealed that Resident #38's used Breo Ellipta 100-25 microgram/inhalation (mcg/inh) inhaler had an open date of 2/2/23 and a do not use after 3/15/23 date on the inhaler. Further observation of the Breo Ellipta 100-25 mcg/inh inhaler revealed a manufacturer's instruction to discard 6 weeks after the inhaler is opened, which would be 3/16/23. Review on 3/22/23 of Resident #38's March 2023 Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed an active order for Breo Ellipta 100-25 mcg/inh with a start date of 9/27/22. Further review of Resident #38's March 2023 EMAR revealed that Resident #38 received Breo Ellipta 100-25 mcg/inh on 3/17/23 to 3/21/22. Interview on 3/22/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff C confirmed the above findings. Staff C stated that Resident #38's currently used the above mentioned Breo Ellipta 100-25 mcg/inh inhaler. [NAME] back medication cart Observation on 3/22/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff D (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed that Resident #25's Novolin 70/30 insulin vial had an open date of 2/1/23 and a do not use after 3/15/23 date on the vial. Further observation of Resident #25's Novolin 70/30 insulin vial revealed a pharmacy label to discard after 42 days after opening, which would be 3/15/23. Interview on 3/22/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff D confirmed the above findings in the [NAME] back medication cart. Staff D stated that Resident #23's Novolin 70/30 insulin vial should have been removed from the medication cart and placed in the medication room in a return to pharmacy container. Review on 3/22/23 of Resident #25's EMAR revealed a current order for Novolin 70/30 insulin pen with a start date of 3/16/23. There was not a current order for a Novolin 70/30 insulin vial. Review on 3/22/23 the facility's pharmacy insulin storage recommendations, dated 2022, revealed .Novolin 70/30 do not refrigerate after opening and room temperature for 42 days. Review on 3/23/23 of the facility's policy titled, Disposal/Destruction of Expired or Discontinued Medication, revision date of 2/23/22, revealed .Facility should place all discontinued or out-dated medications in a designated, secure location which is solely for discontinued medications or marked to identify the medication are discontinued and subject to destruction .
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, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received an influenza vaccine after obtaining a consent to administer the influenza vaccine f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received an influenza vaccine after obtaining a consent to administer the influenza vaccine for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Resident identifier is #25). Findings include: Review on 3/24/23 of Resident #25's influenza vaccine consent form revealed that Resident #25 gave the facility permission to administer the appropriate influenza vaccination annually with a sign date of 3/8/23. Review on 3/24/23 of Resident #25's medical record revealed that Resident #25 did not receive an influenza vaccination after consenting on 3/8/23. Interview on 3/24/23 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings. Review on 3/24/23 of the facility's policy titled, Influenza Immunization Program, revision date of 11/15/21, revealed Center will provide the opportunity to receive the appropriate influenza vaccine to patients .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

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, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the call light sys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the call light system was adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance for 2 residents in a census of 51 residents (Resident Identifiers are #6 and #26). Observation on 3/22/23 at 11:32 a.m. revealed that there were only 2 residents who resided on the [NAME] Unit. It was observed that the nurse's station was under repair and there were no facility staff scheduled to work on that unit. Staff from the [NAME] Unit were responsible for Resident #6 and Resident #26 on the [NAME] Unit. Both resident rooms were over 120 feet away from the nurse's station on the [NAME] Unit and could not be seen from the [NAME] Unit. Observation on 3/22/23 at 11:35 a.m. revealed that Resident #26 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] which was approximately half way down the nursing unit. Interview with Resident #26 on 3/22/23 at 11:35 a.m. revealed that he/she enjoyed living on the unit because of how quiet it was. He/She stated that the staff check on him/her periodically. Resident #26 stated that he/she is very independent and mostly takes care of him/herself. Resident #26 stated that he/she would yell out for help until someone came if he/she fell. Observation on 3/23/23 at 8:35 a.m. revealed that Resident #6 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] which was on the opposite side of the unit from Resident #26 and approximately half way down the nursing unit. Interview with Resident #6 revealed that he/she enjoyed living on the unit because of how quiet it was and that he/she had a private suite. Resident #6 stated that the staff will come down to visit during the day to see if everything was ok. Resident #6 stated that he/she takes care of him/herself and would walk to the nurse's station if he/she needed help. Interview on 3/23/23 at 10:34 a.m. with Staff D (Licensed Practical Nurse) on the [NAME] Unit, who stated that they make periodic rounds on the [NAME] Unit to make sure the residents were okay. Staff D stated both residents were independent and did not need much assistance. He/She stated that the call system does not ring to the nurse's station on the [NAME] Unit. When asked how a staff member would know if the residents on that unit needed help, Staff D stated that he/she would not know until a staff member went down to the unit during their periodic rounds. Interview on 3/23/23 at 1:40 p.m. with Staff E (Licensed Nursing Assistant) on the [NAME] Unit stated that staff will go to the [NAME] Unit during every meal. He/She stated that both residents were pretty independent. He/She said that he/she wouldn't know if someone from the [NAME] unit needed help if they fell or needed immediate assistance. Observation on 3/23/23 at 11:51 a.m. revealed that when Resident #26's call light was pressed, the audible sound could not be heard at the [NAME] Unit nurse's station. Review on 3/24/23 of the facility's policy titled Call Lights revised on 6/1/21 revealed, . All Genesis HealthCare patients will have a call light or alternative communication device with their reach at all times when unattended. Staff will respond to call lights and communication devices promptly . Purpose. To ensure safety and communication between staff and patients.
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $28,912 in fines. Higher than 94% of New Hampshire facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Exeter Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns EXETER CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 0% 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 Exeter Center Staffed?

CMS rates EXETER CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Exeter Center?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at EXETER CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 8 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Exeter Center?

EXETER CENTER 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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 81 certified beds and approximately 61 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EXETER, New Hampshire.

How Does Exeter Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, EXETER CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Exeter Center?

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 Exeter Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, EXETER 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Exeter Center Stick Around?

EXETER CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for New Hampshire 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 Exeter Center Ever Fined?

EXETER CENTER has been fined $28,912 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New Hampshire average of $33,368. 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 Exeter Center on Any Federal Watch List?

EXETER 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.