Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare

7 BALDWIN STREET, FRANKLIN, NH 03235 (603) 934-2541
For profit - Corporation 86 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
40/100
#68 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality with several concerns. It ranks #68 out of 73 nursing homes in New Hampshire, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #6 out of 7 in Merrimack County, with only one local facility rated higher. The trend is worsening, as issues increased from 2 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Staffing is a notable weakness, with a poor 1-star rating, and while turnover is average at 56%, the facility has been criticized for not providing sufficient nursing staff to meet residents' needs. Specific incidents include a failure to provide timely bowel care for a resident, leading to long gaps without bowel movements, and a significant weight loss in another resident without proper nutritional oversight. Overall, while there are no fines against the facility, the combination of low ratings and troubling care incidents raises concerns for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
D
40/100
In New Hampshire
#68/73
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 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
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 11 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New Hampshire average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above New Hampshire average of 48%

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

Jun 2025 6 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide needed care for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident identifiers are #5 and #17 ). Findings i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide needed care for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident identifiers are #5 and #17 ). Findings include: Resident #5 Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #5's Bowel Movement Size Task Record revealed the following: Resident #5 had a bowel movement on 5/21/25 and 5/31/25. Resident #5 did not have a bowel movement on 5/22/25-5/30/25 (9 days). Resident #5's most recent bowel movement was on 6/12/25. Resident #5 did not have a bowel movement on 6/13/25-6/18/25 (6 days). Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #5's May and June 2025's MAR's (Medication Administration Records) revealed the following physician orders: May 2025 Milk of Magnesia Suspension 400 mg/ml (milliliters) (Magnesium Hydroxide) Give 30 ml by mouth as needed for Constipation give at bedtime if no BM (Bowel Movement) in 3 days, start date 5/15/25. This was not documented as being offered to Resident #5 from 5/25/25-5/30/25. Dulcolax Suppository 10 mg (milligrams) (Bisacodyl) Insert 1 suppository rectally as needed for Constipation, if no result from MOM-Miralax by next shift, start date 4/10/25. This was not documented as being offered to Resident #5 from 5/26/25-5/30/25. June 2025 Milk of Magnesia Suspension 400 mg/ml (milliliters) (Magnesium Hydroxide) Give 30 ml by mouth as needed for Constipation give at bedtime if no BM (Bowel Movement) in 3 days, start date 5/15/25. This was not documented as being offered to Resident #5 from 6/16/25-6/18/25. Dulcolax Suppository 10 mg (milligrams) (Bisacodyl) Insert 1 suppository rectally as needed for Constipation, if no result from MOM-Miralax by next shift, start date 4/10/25. This was not documented as being offered to Resident #5 from 6/17/25-6/18/25. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed that on the dates listed above there were no documented interventions offered or given to Resident #5. Resident #17 Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff Z (Nurse Practitioner) revealed that residents are not going to appointments outside of the facility when he/she refers residents to specialists. Staff Z stated that this is usually because of lack of transportation, or the appointment not being made. Further interview with Staff Z revealed Resident #17 had missed several dermatology referrals/appointments. Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #17's medical record revealed the following physician's orders: Refer to Dermatology, order dated 10/22/24. Further medical record review revealed there was no documentation of Dermatology appointment being scheduled. Further review of physician orders an order for a MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) head and neck, order dated 4/14/25. Review further revealed that there was no documentation of the MRI being scheduled or completed. Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #17's medical record revealed the following provider visit notes for wounds: On 11/22/24 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed.Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Dermatology referral made. Continue wound care to site. On 11/29/24 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. [pronoun omitted] has been referred to Dermatology Outpatient for biopsy/evaluation/treatment. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Continue wound care, see Dermatology. On 1/10/25 . [pronoun omitted] has been referred to Dermatology Outpatient for biopsy/evaluation/treatment Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, [pronoun omitted] needs to see Dermatology. Continue wound care. On 1/24/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. An appointment was made with dermatology this week, unfortunately [pronoun omitted] missed [pronoun omitted] appointment. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Continue wound care. Dermatology appointment to be rescheduled. On 1/31/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. An appointment was made with dermatology this week, unfortunately [pronoun omitted] missed [pronoun omitted] appointment, it has reportedly been rescheduled for March. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Deterioration ongoing. Referral to Derm (Dermatology) appointment reportedly rescheduled. On 2/13/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. [pronoun omitted] has an appointment scheduled in March with dermatology. [pronoun omitted] developed redness, pain, odor, increased swelling and drainage at wound site. Culture obtained and this grew MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and Morganella Morganii, . Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, deterioration at site continues. Wound orders updated. Follow up with Dermatology. On 2/21/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. [pronoun omitted] has an appointment scheduled in March with Dermatology. [pronoun omitted] has developed redness, pain, odor, increased swelling and drainage at wound site. Culture obtained and this grew MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and Morganella Morganii both sensitive to gentamicin. Infection cleared with gentamicin ointment. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, [pronoun omitted] needs to see Dermatology for treatment. On 2/28/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. [pronoun omitted] has an appointment scheduled in March with Dermatology. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Continue wound care. Dermatology appointment upcoming. On 4/7/25 . Patient evaluated for left neck wound. This started as a scratch then subsequently ulcerated and has not healed. Ongoing concern for underlying malignancy. Several referrals to Dermatology have been requested. [pronoun omitted] had an appointment with Dermatology but this was missed. Thankfully an appointment was made for this week, spouse will transport. Pain has been stable at site, nursing has noted increased drainage and odor. Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin, Wound orders updated to include Dakins gauze packing and increased dressing change frequency. Follow up with Dermatology. On 5/9/25 . Patient evaluated for malignant left neck wound. Pathology confirmed squamous cell carcinoma. [pronoun omitted] has been referred to ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat) Oncology. The wound has continued to deteriorate and there has been persistent signs of disease progression. Unspecified malignant neoplasm of skin of scalp and neck, Disease progression is evident. Wound orders updated. ENT Oncology referral made, appointment was 5/8 but had to be rescheduled due to no transport (transportation) . Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #17's Surgery Consultation Notes, dated 4/28/25 revealed: . presents to surgical consultation with large left neck wound .this wound is from squamous cell carcinoma and has been there are a least several years . No surgical debridement recommended at this time. Interview on 6/20/25 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed that there was no documentation of Dermatology being contacted from the initial order dated 10/22/24, and no documentation of the MRI being scheduled or completed.
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 F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain weight for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition in a complaint survey. (Resident identifiers are #16). F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain weight for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition in a complaint survey. (Resident identifiers are #16). Findings include:Resident #16 Review on 6/20/25 of the facility provided matrix revealed that Resident #16 had significant weight loss. Review on 6/20/25 of Resident #16's Weight Summary revealed: 5/1/25 Resident #16's weight was 154.6 6/6/25 Resident #16's weight was 144.0 (9.4 pound loss) Review on 6/20/25 of Resident #16's Nutrition Assessments revealed that the last time he/she was seen by the dietician was 2/18/25. Review on 6/20/25 of Resident #16's Physician Regulatory Visit, dated 5/31/25 revealed no mention of recent weight loss, under Past Medical History mentioned weight loss Review on 6/20/25 of Resident #16's documented meal intake titled, Eating Task, Amount eaten (last 30 days) revealed: 5/23 1 meal documented eaten 5/25 2 meals documented eaten 5/26 1 meal documented eaten 5/28 1 meal documented eaten 5/30 1 meal documented eaten 5/31 2 meals documented eaten 6/1 1 meal documented eaten 6/2 1 meal documented eaten 6/3 1 meal documented eaten 6/4 1 meal documented eaten 6/5 no meals documented eaten 6/6 1 meal documented eaten 6/7 1 meal documented eaten 6/9 1 meal documented eaten 6/10 1 meal documented eaten 6/12 1 meal documented eaten 6/15 1 meal documented eaten 6/17 1 meal documented eaten Review on 6/20/25 of Resident #16's care plan for Nutritional Risk, Revision Date 7/11/23 revealed: . Interventions . Monitor intake at all meals, offer alternate choices as needed, alert dietitian and physician to any decline in intake. Interview on 6/20/25 at approximately 9:30 a.m. with Staff C (Nurse Practice Educator) confirmed that there was no documentation of the dietitian/physician being notified of Resident #16's weight loss or meal intakes.
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 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 medications were labeled according to professional standards on 2 of 3 medication carts observe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled according to professional standards on 2 of 3 medication carts observed. Findings include: Observation on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:15 a.m. of the 200's Medication Cart with Staff T (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) revealed the following: Resident #10's Incruse Ellipta inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Resident #11's Breztri inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:15 a.m. with Staff T confirmed the above findings. Observation on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:30 a.m. of the 300's Medication Cart with Staff BB (LPN) revealed the following: Resident #5's Breztri inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Resident #12's 2 Breztri inhalers, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Resident #13's Spiriva inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Resident #14's Trelegy inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Resident #15's Incruse Ellipta inhaler, opened and not labeled with an open/expiration date Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:30 a.m. with Staff BB confirmed the above findings. Review on 6/19/25 of the manufacturer's instructions for Incruse Ellipta, Revision Date December 2023 revealed: . Safely throw away Incruse Ellipta in the trash 6 weeks after you open the tray or when the counter reads 0 whichever comes first. Write the date you open the tray on the label on the inhaler. Review on 6/19/25 of the manufacturer's instructions for Breztri Aerosphere inhaler, Revision Date January 2022 revealed: . Throw away your inhaler in household trash when: puff indicator shows 0 or 3 months after your inhaler has been removed from the foil pouch. Review on 6/19/25 of the manufacturer's instructions for Spiriva Respimat inhaler, Revision Date November 2021 revealed: . Three months after insertion of cartridge, throw away the Spiriva Respimat even if it has not been used, or when the inhaler is locked, or when it expires, whichever comes first. Review on 6/19/25 of the manufacturer's instructions for Trelegy Ellipta inhaler, Revision Date 12/2022 revealed: . Write the tray opened and Discard dates on the inhaler label. The Discard date is 6 weeks from the date you open the tray. Review on 6/19/25 of the facility policy titled, 4.1 Storage of Medication, Dated 1/25 revealed: Policy, Medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to keep the integrity and to support safe, effective drug administration.
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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for laboratory service...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for laboratory services. (Resident identifier is #2.) Findings include: Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:55 a.m. with Staff CC (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed that Resident #2 had a physician's order to obtain a UA (urinalysis) that had not been completed timely. Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #2's physician's orders revealed an order written on 5/6/25, UA with culture and sensitivity one time only for delusions Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #2's May 2025's Treatment Administration Record revealed that the urine had been obtained on 5/7/25. Review on 6/19/25 of Resident#2's medical record revealed that there were no laboratory results for UA on 5/7/25. Review on 6/19/25 of Resident #2's medical record revealed a nursing note, dated 5/13/25 revealed: a urine specimen was collected on 5/13/25 and brought to local laboratory. Interview on 6/19/25 at 11:20 a.m. with Staff Z (Nurse Practitioner) revealed that the urine specimen from 5/7/25 was forgotten in the refrigerator not tested. The specimen needed to be recollected on 5/13/25. Staff Z revealed that specimen obtained are forgotten in the refrigerator all the time and it causes a delay in treatment.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial we...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident in a census of 68 residents. Findings include: Review on 6/19/25 of Mountain Ridge Facility Assessment 2025 revealed staff/personnel required listed staff by shift for the entire facility and did not list staff/personnel required per resident unit. Review on 6/19/25 of personnel files revealed the following staff with light duty restrictions: Staff F (LNA with a 10 pound lifting restriction) and Staff R (LNA with a 10 pound lifting restriction). Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff A (Administrator) revealed that the facility considered Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) that are on light duty as a full duty staff when scheduling. Review on 6/19/25 of 30 days of staffing schedules from 5/20/25 to 6/18/25 revealed the following days with Staff F and/or Staff R working on light duty: On 5/20/25, 5/21/25, 5/26/27, 5/27/25, 5/28/25, 5/29/25, 5/31/25, 6/2/25, 6/3/25, 6/4/25, 6/5/25, 6/9/25, 6/11/25, 6/12/25 6/14/25, and 6/18/25. There was one LNA on light duty on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. On 6/15/25 and 6/17/25 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. there were two LNAs on light duty on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:55 a.m. with Staff I (Anonymous) revealed that the 200 unit works with one LNA at times. The LNAs cannot complete all the require tasks, such as showers, with light duty staff working as a full duty assignment. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 8:00 a.m. with Staff O (Anonymous) revealed that on a recent Sunday there were 72 residents and three LNAs working. Two of the LNAs were on light duty with restrictions. Staff O stated, The two other LNA's that were scheduled had restrictions and one LNA cannot physically or mentally take care of 72 residents. Further interview revealed that light duty staff have full assignments frequently and showers are not being given. Interview on 6/20/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff A revealed that the facility has approximately 33 residents that are dependent on staff or a two person assist for care. Staff A revealed that on 5/28/25 Staff R (LNA on light duty) was scheduled to work alone on the 200 unit. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:10 a.m. with Staff L (Anonymous) stated that the staffing at the facility is unsafe. There has been an increase in falls, there are always LNAs that are on light duty scheduled with full assignments. Residents have to wait a long time to be cared for. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:15 a.m. with Staff K (Anonymous) revealed that he/she felt that there was not enough LNAs to answer call lights and not enough LNAs to assist with resident transfers. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:20 a.m. with Staff N (Anonymous) revealed that having one LNA assigned to each wing is unsafe. Interview revealed there were 6-7 resident requiring hoyer lifts for transfers (requiring assistance of two LNAs) on the 200 Wing. Residents have to wait in bed until there is someone available to help with their transfers. Residents do not get showers when there are three LNAs scheduled. Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:20 a.m. with Staff D (Anonymous), revealed that the staffing for the whole building is usually two LNAs and one Light Duty aide during the evening and night hours. The building has many two person assist. The facility is also still taking new admissions. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:30 a.m. with Staff M (Anonymous) revealed that the dining room is frequently shut down due to inadequate staffing. If there are 3 LNAs scheduled, then showers are not getting done. Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:30 a.m. with Staff E (Anonymous) revealed that the 100 Unit has 9 residents that require a hoyer lift and how quickly a resident is transferred depends on the nurse if they can help or not. A good staffing day on the 100 unit is two LNA's and two nurses, but they usually have one LNA and one nurse. Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:40 a.m. with Staff H (Anonymous), revealed that the 100 Unit usually has one LNA and one nurse and that Staff H cannot help with lifting. Interview on 6/19/25 at 7:45 a.m. with Staff G (Anonymous) revealed that he/she needs to go to all three units to ask for help with hoyer lift transfers on the 200 unit. The floor is staffed with one LNA and one light duty. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 10:45 a.m. with Staff V (Anonymous) revealed that residents are not getting out of bed frequently due to staffing. Staff V revealed The dining room has been closed this past Saturday, Sunday, yesterday, and today due to inadequate staffing. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff Q (Anonymous) revealed that he/she has been at the facility for a few years. Staffing is the worst it has ever been. Residents are not getting to outside specialist appointments, either due to transportation not being scheduled or the appointments not being made. Staff that are here are stressed out. Interview on 6/20/25 at approximately 10:40 a.m. with Staff A (Administrator) revealed that a few weeks ago LNAs arrived at the building to work and refused to punch in due to lack of staff scheduled. The Director of Nursing and Administrator (not clinical) were notified and came in to the building. From approximately 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. the facility did not have any LNAs in the building. Interview on 6/20/25 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff J (Anonymous) revealed that staffing is horrible and that residents frequently miss meaningful activities due to not being out of bed or dressed. When residents are put back to bed after lunch there is not enough staff to get them back up and they stay in bed for the rest of the day. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:35 a.m. with Resident #4 had complaints of not enough staff at times and he/she has to wait for care and transfers because he/she requires two people to assist her because he/she uses a mechanical lift for transfers. Observation on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:35 a.m. of Resident #4 revealed he/she was laying in bed fully clothed with a hoyer lift pad placed underneath them. Observation on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:50 a.m. of a resident's room on the 100 Wing revealed three residents sitting in the room. All 3 residents were in Geriatric Chairs with their eyes closed with side tables placed in front of them and clothing protectors on. Interview on 6/19/25 at approximately 7:50 a.m. with Staff E (Anonymous) revealed the three residents in the room were Resident #6, Resident #7 and Resident #8. Staff E revealed that two of the residents (Resident #7 and Resident #8) reside in the room and Resident #6 was brought in the room by staff because the dining room was closed. They do this more often than not to assist the residents with breakfast when the dining room is closed. I put them all together so I can feed them. Review on 6/20/25 of Resident Council Minutes for May 2025 revealed: On 5/22/25, Departmental Requests, Concerns, Suggestions, Compliments, etc., Nursing: . Bells considered good during the day but bad later in day/night shift. Shower Issues. Told can't get showers since there is 1 person on the unit. Report going a long time without a shower Tired of hearing short staffed.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility assessment included specific staffing needs for each resident unit for a census of 68 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility assessment included specific staffing needs for each resident unit for a census of 68 residents. Findings include: Review on 6/19/25 of Mountain Ridge Facility Assessment 2025 revealed .3. Staff/Personnel required .Combination of RN/LPN: 24 hours Day Shift, 24 Hours evening Shift, 16 Hours night shift (Hours listed for full census) LNA Staff: 52.5 hours Day Shift, 52.5 hours Evening Shift, 22.5 Evening Shift Hours listed for full census) May fluctuate based on census and acuity Further review revealed that the facility assessment did not identify staffing needs per resident unit. Interview with Staff A (Administrator) on 6/20/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. confirmed the Facility Assessment did not consider the needs of each resident unit.
Apr 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to facilitate the inclusion of the resident and/or representative in quarterly care plan meetings for 2 residents in a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to facilitate the inclusion of the resident and/or representative in quarterly care plan meetings for 2 residents in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident identifiers are #4 and #54). Findings include: Resident #4 Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Resident #4's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) revealed that he/she had not been notified or invited and had not attended a care plan meeting in about two years. Review on 4/14/25 of Resident #4's medical record revealed that Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in 2023 and there were no care plan meeting notes after 2023. Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Social Services) revealed that Resident #4 was on the calendar for care plan meetings on 12/3/24 and 5/28/24 but Staff A had no documentation or recollection of the meetings or of Resident #4's DPOA being invited to the meeting. Resident #54 Interview on 4/15/25 at 9:10 a.m. with Resident #54's DPOA revealed that Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in January 2024 and had been to one care plan meeting in October 2024. The DPOA would like to be in attendance to know about the goals being set for Resident #54. Review on 4/15/25 of Resident #54's medical record revealed that Resident #54's DPOA was activated. Further review revealed a care plan meeting note, dated 10/21/24, which Resident #54's DPOA was in attendance. Further review revealed that there was no documentation of a care plan meeting for Resident #54 prior to or after 10/21/24. Interview on 4/15/25 at 1:54 p.m. with Staff A confirmed that there was not a care plan meeting for Resident #54 to prior to or after 10/21/24. Review on 4/14/25 of facility policy titled Person-Centered Care Plan, dated 10/24/22, revealed .9. The Center has the responsibility to assist patients to participate by: 9.1 Extending invitations to patient and HCDM (Health Care Decision Maker) sent in advance; 9.3 Facilitating the inclusion of the patient/resident representative(s) to attend .10. Care plan meetings will be documented by the use of the Care Plan Meeting note .
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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards for physician ...

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 follow professional standards for physician ordered medication parameters for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident Identifier is #38). Findings include: Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 10th edition St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2021. Page 614 .Do not give a medication until you are certain that you can follow the seven rights of medication administration . Page 672 .seven rights of medication administration include right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, right time, right documentation and right indication . Review on 4/16/25 of Resident #38's medical record revealed the following a physician's orders: Morphine Sulfate Oral Tablet 30 MG (Milligram) (Morphine Sulfate), give 30 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain (PRN) 7/10 (a pain level of 7 out of 10) or greater, start date 2/17/25 and discontinued 3/20/25.; and Morphine Sulfate Oral Tablet 30 MG (Morphine Sulfate), give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain 5/10 (a pain level of 5 out of 10) or greater, start date 3/20/25 and discontinued 4/14/25. Review on 4/16/25 of Resident #38's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March and April 2025 revealed that Resident #1's as needed (PRN) Morphine Sulfate 30 MG tablet was administered on 3/1 at 6:08 a.m. and 2:39 p.m., 3/4 at 10:59 p.m., 3/5 at 9:42 p.m., 3/12 at 10:12 p.m., 3/14 at 9:41 p.m., 3/16 at 4:28 a.m., 3/18 at 4:18 p.m., 3/19 at 1:55 a.m., 3/25 at 8:32 a.m., 3/30 at 4:05 a.m., 4/2 at 12:50 a.m., 4/3 at 6:33 p.m., 4/8 at 1:46 p.m., 4/12 at 9:24 a.m. with 0 pain level documented. Interview on 4/16/25 at 1:27 p.m. with Staff E (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #38 received the above medication and there was 0 pain (no pain) level documented.
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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Resident #55 Interview on 4/14/25 at 10:18 a.m. with Resident #55 revealed that he/she was not able to go to the music activity that started at 10:00 a.m. today because there was not enough staff to g...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #55 Interview on 4/14/25 at 10:18 a.m. with Resident #55 revealed that he/she was not able to go to the music activity that started at 10:00 a.m. today because there was not enough staff to get Resident #55 out of bed on time. Resident #55 further revealed that this occurs frequently because there is only one LNA (Licensed Nursing Assistant) for 30 residents in the 200's unit. Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff C (Licensed Nursing Assistant) revealed that he/she was the only LNA on the 200 unit that morning. Interview on 4/15/25 at approximately 10:00 a.m. with Staff D (Director of Nurses) revealed that there are 8 residents that require mechanical lifts for transfer, 11 residents that require extensive care, and 3 residents that require 2 assist with care on the 200 unit. Interview on 4/14/25 at 11:18 a.m. with Resident #52 revealed that he/she has been waiting appproximately over an hour for staff to assist him/her back to bed. Resident #52 stated that he/she had asked Staff F (LNA) to assist her back to bed and was told by Staff F that he/she was the only LNA on the 100 unit this morning so he/she would have to wait. Interview on 4/14/25 with Staff F confirmed that Resident #52 had to wait because he/she was assisting another resident. Staff F stated that he/she was the only LNA assigned to the unit due to a staff call out and there was not another LNA assigned to the unit. Staff F also stated that there should be 2 LNA's assigned to 100 unit. Interview on 4/15/25 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Resident #54's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) revealed that Resident #54 had told him/her that Resident #54 would wait up to an hour for care. Resident #54's DPOA stated that Resident #54 liked to stay in bed but he/she can't get up herself so if he/she needed something he/she had to press the call bell. Resident #54's DPOA stated that he/she had spoken to staff and was told a lot of times they only have one LNA on duty so there were long wait times for care. Review on 4/15/25 of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes dated 2/27/25 revealed that there were concerns with very long call bell wait times for getting up. Interview on 4/15/25 at 10:23 a.m. with the Resident Council revealed that all 7 residents in attendance had concerns with call bells being answered timely. 6 out of 7 residents who reside on the 100 and 200 unit stated that it worse on the 3-11 shift. They stated that on most weekends, either a Saturday and/or a Sunday or sometimes both and 2- 3 days during the week, there was one LNA responsible for 28-30 residents on the 100 or 200 halls. One resident stated that it was a rare day when there are more than two LNA's working during the same shift. Interview and observation on 4/15/25 at 10:25 a.m. with Resident #55 (Resident Council President) revealed that staffing was a real problem in the facility. Resident #55 stated that he/she was 20 minutes late to the meeting because there was not enough staff to assist him/her to get out of bed and dressed. Interview on 4/16/25 at 12:01 p.m. with Staff C (LNA) confirmed that Resident #55 was late to the Resident Council Meeting on 4/15/25 because they were short on help. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff for 24 out of 30 days of nursing staff schedules reviewed reviewed between 3/15/25 and 4/15/25. (Resident identifiers are #34, #36, #52, #54, #55, and #278). Findings include: Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 10:47 a.m. with Resident #278 revealed that he/she waits for staff to get him/her up and dressed. Resident #278 stated that he/she is at the facility for short-term rehabilitation following a back fracture and he/she requires assistance for care. Resident #278 stated that he/she has had an incontinent episode while waiting for his/her call bell to be answered to go to the bathroom. Interview on 4/17/25 with Staff I (Scheduling Coordinator) revealed that the schedule has been consitantly short staffed since they started three weeks ago. Interview on 4/11/25 with Staff N (Anonymous direct care staff) revealed that the facility does not have enough Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA) staff to care for the residents on a routine basis. Staff N stated that the facility has ongoing short staffing of LNAs on evening shift. Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 3:30 p.m. with Staff J (LNA) and Staff K (LNA) revealed they are short staff for at least 3 times a week and that on 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, there would be one LNA instead of two LNA's working on the 200 unit. Staff J stated that resident's call lights would be answered when they can and at times residents would have to wait for a period of time. Interview on 4/16/25 at approximately 9:08 a.m. with Staff E (Registered Nurse) and L (Registered Nurse) revealed that they are short staff and often works as LNA's or as a direct care nurse on a medication cart to cover shifts which is not there primary role. Staff E and Staff L stated that they cannot do their managerial duties as they are covering shifts as LNA's and direct care nurses. Interview on 4/17/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff M (Infection Preventionist) revealed that he/she would cover shift as an LNA on top of his/her primary role as an Infection Preventionist and he/she often missed meetings with the nurse practitioner to discuss resident's on antibiotics and antibiotic sterwardship. Review on 4/17/25 of the facility's matrix revealed that there were 14 residents admitted to the facility for the past 30 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from stock and multi-dose vials were dated when opened in 1 of 1 medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from stock and multi-dose vials were dated when opened in 1 of 1 medication room observed. Findings include: Observation on 4/14/25 at approximately 8:15 a.m. of Medication Room with Staff B (Registered Nurse) revealed the following expired and opened/undated medications and biological: One opened bottle of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (Mantoux) solution with no open date or open expiration date in the vaccine refridgerator; One bottle of opened Afluria, Influenza Vaccine 2024-2025 Formula with no open date or open expiration date in the vaccine refridgerator; Three bags of IV (Intravenous) Vancomycin (antibiotics) 850 mg (milligrams)/267 ml (milliliters) NS (Normal Saline) for Resident #48 with an expiration date of 3/10/25 in the medication room refrigerator; Three bags of IV Zosyn (antibiotic) Intravenous Solution 3-0.375 GM (Grams)/50 ml for Resident #46 with an expiration date of 3/26/25 in the medication room refrigerator. Interview on 4/14/25 at approximately 8:15 a.m. with Staff B confirmed that the above findings had no open date and open expiration date, the Tuberculin and Afluria vaccine vials had been used, and that the IV antibiotics were expired. Review on 4/14/2025 of the manufacturers instructions for Afluria, Influenza Vaccine revealed: 16.2 Storage and handling -Once the stopper of the multi-dose vial has been pierced the vial must be discarded within 28 days. Review on 4/14/25 of the manufacturers instructions for Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative revealed: A vial of Tubersol which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded. Review on 4/14/25 of facility policy titled Medication Storage, dated 1/25 revealed .14. Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications .are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and/or resident representative a timely Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 1 out of 3 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and/or resident representative a timely Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 1 out of 3 residents, and failed to provide the resident and/or representative the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) for 2 out of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. (Resident identifiers are #53 and #48). Finding include: Resident #48 Review on 4/15/25 of Beneficiary Notice - Residents discharged Within the Last Six Months form, completed by the facility, revealed that Resident #48's last covered day of Medicare Part A Services was on 4/8/25 with benefit days remaining. Resident #48 remained in the facility. Review on 4/15/25 of Resident #48's NOMNC revealed a last covered day of 4/8/25. Resident #48 was notified on 4/7/25. Interview on 4/15/25 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff H (Business Office Manager) confirmed that Resident #48's NOMNC was not given 48 hours notice. Further interview with Staff H revealed that the SNF ABN was not provided to Resident #48. Resident #53 Review on 4/15/25 of Beneficiary Notice - Residents discharged Within the Last Six Months form, completed by the facility, revealed that Resident #53's last covered day of Medicare Part A Services was on 12/22/24 with benefit days remaining. Resident #53 remained in the facility. Interview on 4/15/25 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff H confirmed that the SNF ABN was not provided to Resident #53.
Jun 2024 2 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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to physician ordered medication param...

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 adhere to physician ordered medication parameters for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain in a final sample of 22 residents (Resident Identifier #1). 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 . Review on 6/25/24 at approximately 12:48 p.m. of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order for Oxycodone HCI [Hydrochloride] 5 MG [Milligrams] give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for pain management AND give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain 5/10 or greater. With a start date of 5/29/24. Review on 6/25/24 of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2024 revealed that Resident #1's as needed (PRN) Oxycodone 5 MG tablet was administered once a day on 6/1, 6/3, 6/5, 6/6, 6/10, 6/17, 6/20, 6/21, 6/23, 6/24, 6/26, and twice a day on 6/8, 6/9, 6/12, 6/14, 6/22 with no pain level documented. Interview on 6/27/24 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff D (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #1 received the above medication and there was no pain level documented.
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 residents were offered and/or provided education on the risks and benefits of Pneumococcal immunization for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were offered and/or provided education on the risks and benefits of Pneumococcal immunization for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Resident Identifier #73). Findings include: Review on 6/27/24 of Resident #73's medical record revealed that Resident #73 was admitted to the facility in February 2024. Further review revealed that Resident #73 had no Pneumococcal immunization history in the medical record nor was their education/consent/declination for Pneumococcal vaccine present. Interview on 6/27/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff C (Infection Preventionist) confirmed that Resident #73 had not been offered or educated on the risks/benefits of pneumonia vaccines and should have been on admission. Review on 6/27/24 of facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccination, revealed: . 1. Upon admission, obtain the pneumococcal vaccination history of all patients .Adults aged greater than or equal to 65 years who have not previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown should receive a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine PCV 20 .
Jun 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations were reported immediately or no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations were reported immediately or no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for abuse in a final sample of 24 residents (Resident Identifier is #73). Findings include: Interview on 6/6/23 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff A (Anonymous) revealed that Resident #73 was involved in a medication error where they received someone else's Morphine (opioid) and required 3 doses of Narcan® (opioid antagonist). Review on 6/6/23 of Resident #73's nurses notes revealed a note dated 5/27/23 that stated Resident #73 received a long acting narcotic and orders received for Narcan® 0.4 milligrams per milliliters times 3 doses every 3 hours and to monitor respirations every 15 minutes. Interview on 6/8/23 at approximately 8:59 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed that they could not provide confirmation that Resident #73's medication error report, occurring on 5/27/23, was sent to the State Survey Agency or State Long Term Care Ombudsman office.
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 interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed to...

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 physician orders were followed to measure a resident's weight daily for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition in a final sample of 24 residents (Resident Identifier is #65). Findings include: The [NAME]-[NAME], 2009, Fundamentals of Nursing 7th Edition, St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby, Chapter 23 Legal Implications in Nursing Practice, on page 336- Physicians' Orders states, 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 . Review on 6/8/23 of the Resident #65's medical record revealed an order to weigh Resident #65 every day shift starting 5/2/23 without a stop date. Review on 6/8/23 of Resident #65's weight summary and dialysis treatment records for May and June 2023 revealed that there were no weights documented for 13 out of 38 days. Interview on 6/8/23 at approximately 1:53 p.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above finding.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a large wardrobe with area of laminate peeling off with sharp edges on the front of the doo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a large wardrobe with area of laminate peeling off with sharp edges on the front of the door that pose a risk of injury to staff and residents. Interview on 6/8/23 at 10:00 a.m. with resident #39 revealed that the closet door had been like that for quite some time but was unable to say exactly how long it had been. Interview on 6/8/23 at 11:45 a.m. with Staff D confirmed the above findings. Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment in 5 of 46 resident rooms. Findings include: Observation on 6/8/23 at 11:45 a.m. during facility tour with Staff D (Maintenance Director) revealed the following environmental findings: Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a chipped corner wall on the lower half of the sink station exposing a metal edge approximately 1 foot in length. The bathroom had missing base cove along the wall approximately 3 feet in length exposing sheet rock, a water stained ceiling tile over the toilet, and a cracked light fixture cover approximately 1 foot in length. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom had a wall around toilet with chipped paint and sheet rock approximately 1 foot in length and a ceiling vent unaffixed to ceiling on one side hanging slightly over the toilet. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had wallpaper curling up and peeling from the window wall approximately 2 feet in length and missing wallpaper that had come unaffixed from ceiling to floor on the opposite end of the window wall. The bathroom had a wall alongside the toilet that had chipped paint and sheet rock and base cove missing at edge of the wall outside the bathroom exposing sheet rock approximately 8 inches long. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a wooden closet door with a chip approximately 4 by 6 inches.
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

  • "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

Strengths
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
Concerns
  • • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
  • • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 40/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare 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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much 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 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare during 2023 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare?

Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare 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 86 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FRANKLIN, New Hampshire.

How Does Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare'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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare?

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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare 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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 64%. 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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare Ever Fined?

Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare 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 Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCare 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.