LAFAYETTE CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
The Lafayette Center in Franconia, New Hampshire has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #65 out of 73 facilities in the state, placing them in the bottom half, and #4 out of 5 in Grafton County, meaning only one other local facility is rated worse. Although the facility is improving, reducing issues from 11 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, it still has a concerning number of fines totaling $50,164, which is higher than 91% of New Hampshire facilities. Staffing is rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 56%, which is average, but they have sufficient RN coverage. However, there have been serious concerns, such as a failure to provide proper care for a resident with pressure ulcers, leading to worsening conditions, and inadequate adherence to wound care protocols that could jeopardize resident safety.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Hampshire
- #65/73
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $50,164 in fines. Higher than 64% of New Hampshire facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Hampshire. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below New Hampshire average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near New Hampshire avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
8 points above New Hampshire average of 48%
The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record
May 2025
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing for 1 of 3 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents apprised of the progress towards resolution, and maintain evidence demonstrating the response and rat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and update comprehensive care plans for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers in a fina...
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, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 ...
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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to assist a resident in gaining access to hearing services for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for communication in a final sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0778
(Tag F0778)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary assistance in making transportation arrangements for a scheduled x-ray which resulted in a missed a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for 2 of 2 residents observed for wound care and failed to develop a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
5 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident Identifier #5).
Findings...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that alleged violations of abuse were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 3 of 4 allega...
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 F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to revise care plans for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident Identifiers are #1 and #3).
Findin...
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 F0699
(Tag F0699)
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 residents who are trauma survivors were free from re-traumatization for 1 of 1 residents rev...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an accurately documented medical record for 1 of 4 allegations of abuse (Resident Identifier is #1).
Interview...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
6 deficiencies
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** Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide approp...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards as is possible regarding storage of chemical ...
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
**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 medications were stored...
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, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean and sanitized utensils during dishw...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident # 212
Observation on 5/13/24 at approximately 1:49 p.m. of Resident #212's room revealed a contact precautions sign on ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop, implement, and revise a car...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
11 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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to fully assess a resident's complaint ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to a resident who requested pain medication based on physician's orders for 1 of ...
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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days, except if the attending phy...
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
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 label, date, and store food in accordance to professional standards, maintain a sanitary environment, a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify resident representatives and families of those residing in the facility by 5:00 p.m. the next calendar day followi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 residents' cal...
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** Resident #24
Review on 3/17/23 of Resident #24's current physician's orders revealed that Resident #24 has an order for the foll...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards for labeling and storage of food items brought to residents by visitors ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0572
(Tag F0572)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to inform residents, both orally and in writing, of thei...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Resident #31
Review on 3/20/23 of Resident #31's progress notes dated 2/22/23 revealed that Resident #31 was sent to the hospital and returned to the facility on 2/25/23 status post Gastric Abscess.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Resident #31
Review on 3/20/23 of Resident #31's progress notes, dated 2/22/23, revealed that Resident #31 was sent to the hospital on 2/22/23 and returned to the facility on 2/25/23 status post Gastr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $50,164 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Hampshire. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (20/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Lafayette Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LAFAYETTE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Lafayette Center Staffed?
CMS rates LAFAYETTE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 58%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lafayette Center?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at LAFAYETTE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 24 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Lafayette Center?
LAFAYETTE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 72 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FRANCONIA, New Hampshire.
How Does Lafayette Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, LAFAYETTE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lafayette Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Lafayette Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LAFAYETTE 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 1-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 Lafayette Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at LAFAYETTE CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 58%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Lafayette Center Ever Fined?
LAFAYETTE CENTER has been fined $50,164 across 1 penalty action. This is above the New Hampshire average of $33,581. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Lafayette Center on Any Federal Watch List?
LAFAYETTE 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.